6.5 Jap Terminal Effectiveness

It has often been said that historical tests like those conducted by the "Pig Board" have shown the "ideal" caliber range for infantry rifles/carbines to be 6.5-7mm. Yet, every country that adopted 6.5mm or 7mm eventually abandoned them in favor of 7.62mm or larger calibers. In most instances, economics and/or politics played a major role. However, those don't seem to have been factors in the decision by Imperial Japan to switch from 6.5mm to 7.7mm.

The only published reason that I've ever seen is that combat experience resulted in dissatisfaction with the terminal effectiveness of 6.5 Jap. This is a bit puzzling to me, inasmuch as the standard, 139gr ball projectile has a configuration and rearward weight bias which should produce fairly rapid onset of yaw in soft tissue.
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/jap65mm.gif
Can anybody:

1. Cite authoritative source(s) of the actual reason(s) for the switch from 6.5mm to 7.7mm?

2. Cite anecdotal reports of incapacitation effect of 6.5 Jap ball ammo, either by shooters or shootees?

3. Post the ballistic gelatin wound profile of WWII 6.5 Jap ball ammo?

All are great questions. I have often wondered myself. Anecdotally I have asked American Pacific War combat vets what they thought of the effectiveness of the Jap 6.5. From 2 Soldiers and one Marine I was told "It was better then anything we had."

I have asked American Pacific War combat vets what they thought of the effectiveness of the Jap 6.5. From 2 Soldiers and one Marine I was told "It was better then anything we had."
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2figure45.jpg
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter2figure46.jpg

Great topic, Stan.

Yes, it is interesting that the small arms studies consistently recommend bullets of 6.5-7mm. My opinion is that it's because that's the biggest bullet you can get whose recoil the average guy can handle.

Regarding the Japanese moving from 6.5 to 7.7. I think it's based on ignorance and insecurity.

My belief regarding wound ballistics is that most (almost all!) of wound incapacitation is shot placement.

Now, you may have a 6.5mm bullet that performs "perfectly," but if your shot placement is off, it will seem the bullet is defective.

The Japanese, not realizing this important distinction, blamed the bullet for shot-placement errors and thought the solution was a bigger bullet. After all, all the other nations were using larger calibers!

My belief is that a poorly placed shot with a 7.7mm will kill no better than a poorly placed shot with a 6.5mm.

Thus, ignorance and insecurity prompted their switch. Not all military procurement decisions are based on the technical merits.

So, does size matter not at all? It matters in the sense of needing mass for certain penetration and external ballistics considerations.

In general, the bigger the hole the better. "Let the air in and the blood out." But differences between 6.5 and 6.8 and 7.0 are, practically speaking, meaningless, as far as I'm concerned.

Did the Japanese err in going away from 6.5 to 7.7? If they were seeking better wound incapacitation in soft tissue, yes. They ended up with a weapon that recoiled more for no real gain in wound performance because the major metric was shot placement.

If they were seeking better penetration in intermediate barriers and 6.5 at 138 grains couldn't give them whatever arbitrary measures they were seeking and 7.7 at 174 grains did, then, no.

This is very interesting, and I hope someone comes up with some well-sourced documentation.

John

John, there is at least one exception to the rule of 6.5-7mm being the caliber of choice in small arms studies. The Squad Automatic Weapon program of the 1970s looked at 5.56, 6.00, 6.35, and 6.5mm, but the design analysis concluded that the optimum caliber was -- Wait for it! -- 6mm. :D :D :D :D :D :D

I pretty much agree with you on the importance of shot placement in producing incapacitation. However, I can't help having this feeling that bullet size and cartridge power just might matter. I don't recall ever hearing of complaints about the fight-stopping ability of the various 7.62mm and larger caliber, full-power cartridges (.30-06, 7.62 NATO, 8mm Mauser, etc) like there have been about .30 Carbine and 5.56 NATO.

I neglected to note that the pics in my previous post are from the following book, should you or anyone else wish to read what other info it has:

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/frameindex.html

I also posted my question on 68forums, and DocGKR replied that Fackler did test 6.5 Jap ammo in 1987:
WWII Japanese military ammo: vel=2402 fps, pen=55+cm, NL=12cm, maxTC=19cm at 24cm, RW not recorded, but lab notes report no frag.
That's very similar to the wound profile of the WWII .303 British load (below). Okay, but not spectacular.

Stan,

I looked at that cross sections 139 Jap bullet you posted. Before I get to it some WWII Jap 139 FMJ has been pulled and it mics at .260. The Chinese used this gun and caliber too and pulled Chinese 139 also miced .260. Now to fine a 6.5 Jap rifle with a .264 groove is rare, alone one that more fit that .260 bullet. Japs often run pretty fat in the bore and groove department. Now back to you bullet pic. Notice how thin the jacket is nearing the bottom or base of the bullet. I think they intentionally did that so the powder gases could bump the bullet up, or obturate if you will, into the grooves to make a gas seal and also insure the bullet gets spun for stabilization.

The Japs wanted a larger caliber for one reason because they weren't satisfied with normal vehicle penetration.

Joe

Stan, I looked at that cross sections 139 Jap bullet you posted. Notice how thin the jacket is nearing the bottom or base of the bullet. I think they intentionally did that so the powder gases could bump the bullet up, or obturate if you will, into the grooves to make a gas seal and also insure the bullet gets spun for stabilization.
That could be, Joe, although it seems to me if that was what they wanted, they'd have made the bullet with a deep cavity in the base of the core, like the Russians did with lead core, 7.62x54R light ball.
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/A0034.jpg
The Japs wanted a larger caliber for one reason because they weren't satisfied with normal vehicle penetration.
Sounds plausible. Can you cite a source to substantiate it?

That could be, Joe, although it seems to me if that was what they wanted, they'd have made the bullet with a deep cavity in the base of the core, like the Russians did with lead core, 7.62x54R light ball.
http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/A0034.jpg

Sounds plausible. Can you cite a source to substantiate it?

If I can relocate the website that stated that I'll forward it on to you.

While we are here wonder what the truth was as to whether the Japs shot wooden bullets in those 6.5's to just wound the enemy and take more then one out of action.

Joe

While we are here wonder what the truth was as to whether the Japs shot wooden bullets in those 6.5's to just wound the enemy and take more then one out of action.
Sounds like urban legend nonsense to me, Joe. There may have been 6.5 "gallery" ammo with wood bullets, but if any actually was used in combat I think it was more likely an act of desperation due to lack of ball ammo, than a desire to inflict non-lethal wounds.

When fired from rifles, the standard ball load produced survivable wounds in 2 out of 3 US soldiers hit, according to the data in http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/chapter5.2.htm#table93

Stan,

Go here: http://www.japaneseweapons.net/gunyojyu/shojyu/english.htm

scroll down until you reach Type 99 7.7 and read why they wanted to change to a larger caliber.

Joe

Stan,

Go here: http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc3.htm

about halfway down the page states the Japanese were unhappy with the stopping power on the larger European bodies.

Joe

Stan,

Go here: http://www.japaneseweapons.net/gunyojyu/shojyu/english.htm

scroll down until you reach Type 99 7.7 and read why they wanted to change to a larger caliber.

Go here: http://www.1jma.dk/articles/1jmaIJAc3.htm

about halfway down the page states the Japanese were unhappy with the stopping power on the larger European bodies.
Thanks, Joe. I'm not surprised at the second statement. In the 1905 war they used round nose bullets. The wound profile would be like that of 6.5 Carcano: http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03b.htm But, does that idea apply to the 138gr spitzers used 30-40 years later?

As for what the first website says, it seems to me that with the unusually thick, steel jacket of the WWII ball rounds, 6.5mm projectiles should've penetrated sheet metal pretty well. It'd make an interesting test, if enough Jap military 6.5 and 7.7 ammo could be acquired.

Thanks, Joe. I'm not surprised at the second statement. In the 1905 war they used round nose bullets. The wound profile would be like that of 6.5 Carcano: http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03b.htm But, does that idea apply to the 138gr spitzers used 30-40 years later?

As for what the first website says, it seems to me that with the unusually thick, steel jacket of the WWII ball rounds, 6.5mm projectiles should've penetrated sheet metal pretty well. It'd make an interesting test, if enough Jap military 6.5 and 7.7 ammo could be acquired.


It's hard to find good surplus Jap ammo Stan, tell you why. They really didn't know what they were doing for successful island jungle fighting. Believe it or not they didn't seal their ammo...that is asphalt the bullet and lacquer the primers. Consequently they themselves suffered with bad ammo on those hot, wet, humid jungles. Thus one reason you don't see much of their WWII ammo...it's no good. Further they came up with rubberized canvas because they found out too that everything else rotted in those jungle conditions.

I look at the 6.5 bring down airplanes (throw in vehicles if you like) as the U.S. switching from 30 cal machine guns to 50 cal in our planes. Yes I know the 50 can carry a incendiary payload. On tissue the 6.5 is penetrater because of it's sectional density. I feel the larger heavier caliber bullets have more clout when going through steel and such.

Joe

Some good reading in your links, Stan. Here's an interesting quote from the "Bougainville Campaign":

"From wound examination alone, it was never possible to distinguish the caliber of rifle or machinegun bullets nor the size of explosive shells."

John

It's hard to find good surplus Jap ammo Stan, tell you why. They really didn't know what they were doing for successful island jungle fighting. Believe it or not they didn't seal their ammo...that is asphalt the bullet and lacquer the primers. Consequently they themselves suffered with bad ammo on those hot, wet, humid jungles. Thus one reason you don't see much of their WWII ammo...it's no good.
Yeah, although late last night I was searching the web for info, and came across a mid-August notice of a full case of genuine, 6.5 Jap military ammo for sale. Was in pristine condition, because it had been in a sealed tin. A full, frakkin' case of like new, WWII ammo! :eek: (There were good quality photos to prove it was for real. The cartridges, cartons, and stripper clips shown were in primo condition.)

Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw it, and a quick session on google just now failed to locate it. :o
I look at the 6.5 bring down airplanes (throw in vehicles if you like) as the U.S. switching from 30 cal machine guns to 50 cal in our planes. Yes I know the 50 can carry a incendiary payload. On tissue the 6.5 is penetrater because of it's sectional density. I feel the larger heavier caliber bullets have more clout when going through steel and such.
You're probably right. But I'd still like to see test results. :D

P.S. While looking for the WWII ammo earlier, I happened upon the following in regard to wood bullets:
The wooden bullets were used to launch rifle grenades. No doubt, our guys occasionally found such bullets and made a lot of assumptions.

http://www.tekidanki.com/articles/spigot.pdf
I really think this might have been a case of either mistaken interpretation of what the wood bullets were for (remember, the US didn't have wood-bulleted ammo in inventory, so it's likely that US troops were seeing this stuff for the very first time), or a case of Japanese desparation for anything that went bang in the later stages of certain battles when the US Navy had largely choked off Japan's seaborn supply system.

In 6.5x50 mm Huon only lists training blanks being made with wood bullets in both the rifle and machine gun pattern ammunition.
The quotes above are from http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-31415.html

And from wiki:
6.5 gallery ammunition incorporated a paper or wood bullet... Ammunition used in the spigot-type Japanese grenade launchers often have paper bullets and can be identified by staked primers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.5x50mm_Arisaka

Here's an interesting quote from the "Bougainville Campaign":

"From wound examination alone, it was never possible to distinguish the caliber of rifle or machinegun bullets nor the size of explosive shells."
Yeah, I'd say that sounds quite reasonable, John. But, it doesn't really tell us anything about the relationship between caliber and incapacitation.

Well, it tells us that there was no medically discernable difference between 6.5mm and 7.7mm. Which says to me, why not go with the less bulky round with less recoil?

John

Oh, and here's a quote for that will please both 6mm and 6.5mm fans, but, apparently, we'll have to compromise at 6.25mm!

"So where does the .256" British fit into this? The answer lies in a series of experiments conducted by British, American and (possibly) Russian agencies to discover the ideal military small arms calibre. In the late 1960s, the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield began a detailed theoretical analysis of the striking energy needed to disable soldiers with various levels of protection, and the ballistics required to deliver that energy at battle ranges for a number of different calibres.

"The conclusion was that the optimum calibre would lie between 6mm and 6.5mm, and an experimental 6.25x43 cartridge (based on the abortive 7mm round) was developed which was claimed to have significant advantages over both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibres. Performance proved to be virtually equal to the 7.62mm at up to 600 metres, with recoil and ammunition weight much closer to those of the 5.56mm.

"At the same time, the US Army realised the need for a light machine gun with a longer effective range (out to 800 metres) than the 5.56mm cartridge could provide but appreciably less weight than the 7.62mm M60 MG. Their research led to the development of the 6mm SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) cartridge. A relatively heavy bullet combined with a moderate velocity were selected for the optimum long-range performance.

"In the event, weapons firing improved 5.56mm ammunition were selected instead, largely to avoid the supply problems created by the use of three small-arms calibres. More recently, it has emerged that Russian armament firms, who had earlier copied NATO in producing a small-calibre (5.45mm) cartridge, are now offering weapons in a new 6mm calibre.

"Returning to the .256" British, it is now clear that the 6.5mm calibre is a much better compromise for a general-purpose military rifle and machine-gun cartridge than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. So why did the Japanese (and most other nations with 6.5mm weapons) develop larger and more powerful calibres in the 1930s? The main reason is certainly that the need for automatic fire from shoulder weapons was not generally appreciated; cartridges were optimised for machine guns and bolt-action rifles.

"Another reason probably lies in the relatively ineffective loadings used in most 6.5mm cartridges at the time, usually featuring heavy, round-nosed bullets and low velocities. By 1914, the standard Japanese loading was better than most, with a pointed bullet and reasonable ballistics (interestingly, closely matching those of the 7mm EM-2). However, the RSAF Enfield experiments suggested a lighter bullet at a higher velocity as the optimum loading for the 6.5mm calibre, a specification well within the capacity of the Arisaka cartridge."

Source: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm

John

Well, it tells us that there was no medically discernable difference between 6.5mm and 7.7mm. Which says to me, why not go with the less bulky round with less recoil?
Concur with both points. If tissue destruction and lethality were the same for both calibers, there are significant advantages to using the smaller round.

As a result of this discussion, and reading other info during the past few days, and the lack of a definitive, authoritative answer to the question, I'm going to hypothesize that the switch from 6.5mm to 7.7mm may have been caused by multiple factors:

1. Failure of 6.5mm to rapidly incapacitate with the 160gr round nose bullets employed during the Russo-Japanese War. Whether that experience caused a perception of failures to stop when 138gr spitzer projectiles were used against Germans in WWI, and during the 1930s against the Chinese, or if such failures really happened, is not clear.

2. A desire for greater destructive effects against materiel targets, such as trucks and aircraft.

3. A desire to simplify the logistical equation. Up through WWII, most armies attempted to have one caliber for rifles and machine guns. I suspect the Japanese evaluated the capabilities of both rounds and reached a logical conclusion. To paraphrase a great thinker, ;) :D the 7.7 could do everything that the 6.5 could, but 6.5 couldn't do everything 7.7 could.

Oh, and here's a quote for that will please both 6mm and 6.5mm fans, but, apparently, we'll have to compromise at 6.25mm!
Yeah...and call it the 6.25 Compromise Optimum Military Battle Advanced Technology (COMBAT) cartridge! :D
In the late 1960s, the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield began a detailed theoretical analysis of the striking energy needed to disable soldiers with various levels of protection, and the ballistics required to deliver that energy at battle ranges for a number of different calibres.

The conclusion was that the optimum calibre would lie between 6mm and 6.5mm and an experimental 6.25x43 cartridge (based on the abortive 7mm round) was developed which was claimed to have significant advantages over both the 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibres.
Hmm...notice how the Brits kept changing their minds about what the "ideal" caliber is? First they said it was 7mm. When that didn't fly, they decided it was 6.25mm. Later still, it became 4.85mm... :rolleyes:
At the same time, the US Army realised the need for a light machine gun with a longer effective range (out to 800 metres) than the 5.56mm cartridge could provide but appreciably less weight than the 7.62mm M60 MG. Their research led to the development of the 6mm SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) cartridge. A relatively heavy bullet combined with a moderate velocity were selected for the optimum long-range performance.
Sorta like a scaled-down 6.5 Grendel, huh? ;)
Returning to the .256" British, it is now clear that the 6.5mm calibre is a much better compromise for a general-purpose military rifle and machine-gun cartridge than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. So why did the Japanese (and most other nations with 6.5mm weapons) develop larger and more powerful calibres in the 1930s? The main reason is certainly that the need for automatic fire from shoulder weapons was not generally appreciated; cartridges were optimised for machine guns and bolt-action rifles.
I presume by "shoulder weapons" he actually means "infantry rifles," since many shoulder-fired, automatic weapons like the Lewis gun, BAR, Chauchat, etc, were widely used during and after WWI? :confused:

Has full-auto fire capability proven to be a feature not worth having on standard infantry rifles?
By 1914, the standard Japanese loading was better than most, with a pointed bullet and reasonable ballistics (interestingly, closely matching those of the 7mm EM-2).
But even more closely matching 6.5 Grendel! In fact, 6.5 Grendel could be considered a modern version of the 6.5 Jap round, just refined and updated. :)
However, the RSAF Enfield experiments suggested a lighter bullet at a higher velocity as the optimum loading for the 6.5mm calibre, a specification well within the capacity of the Arisaka cartridge."
Yes. It's too bad they didn't shorten the 138gr bullet to get weight down to 110-120gr prior to WWII. The performance of such a load could have been "interesting"...and might've altered the course of post-WWII military cartridge development.

Stan,

In researching for Japanese 6.5 inflicted wounds I ran across a very very detailed and professional article on the autopsy of Kennedy's skull and the why's of what happen. The very first doctor to examine his head would said it was a tangenal (spelling) wound. In other words that FMG 160 grain bullet fired from that Carcano should have just punched a hole through his skull with slight hydraulic effect. Instead it made a fairly large entrace and extremely large exit would (5x10 cm's). The studied 6.5 wounds in WWI and WWII and when the damage was massive it was said it was a tangenal wound. I take that as the bullet didn't hit the body straight on. Off topic but on the reason why Kennedy's head move back and to the one side rather then forward when shot from behind they explained that with actual videos of other people shot in real life on film and it has alot to do with the jet of expelled brain, tissue, blood, and skull moving the head. They studied the films on Kennedy and can prove for sure that at the impact of the bullet his head first moved down and forward before it made it's other irregular movements that people thought weren't consistent with being shot from behind. The experts said with his head moving forward and down at impact shows a bullet from behind and up. In others words Oswald was shooting down at the top of his head kinda.

So it depends on how the 6.5 strikes the body and also whether it has to go through a helmet first on a head shot.

I'll try shooting at some small airplanes and military choppers that fly over my house with my 6.5 Grendel and see if they will bring them down!! NOT :D

The Jap 6.5 was miscalled a 25 caliber during WWII and it's not a 25 caliber.

Joe

Joe, perhaps Kennedy's wound was caused by the 160-grain round nose yawing instead of drilling straight through, as usual. You get an inch-and-a-half long bullet going sideways and that'll create some large rips and a large temporary shock cavity. Just a thought. . . .

John

Joe, perhaps Kennedy's wound was caused by the 160-grain round nose yawing instead of drilling straight through, as usual. You get an inch-and-a-half long bullet going sideways and that'll create some large rips and a large temporary shock cavity. Just a thought. . . .

John


I don't think that was it. The one that went through his back, existing his chest, yawed before it entered Connally's back. That's understandable. Could have been the curvature of the skull that caused it to perform funny. They did find the bullet that went through JFK's head. It was in the front seat area of the car in fragments covered with his tissue. That I've never heard before.

Joe

John, I hope you'll excuse me, but you comment about bullet yaw causes me to revisit the following:
My belief regarding wound ballistics is that most (almost all!) of wound incapacitation is shot placement.
IMO, this is a somewhat erroneous idea. I think it's true that if the shot is well placed, it will quickly incapacitate or kill. The problem is that it's very difficult in combat conditions (brief target exposure times, intervening cover, incoming fire, etc) to get proper shot placement. The result is that many, if not most, hits will be other than to the CNS.

If good shot placement could be consistently achieved by all riflemen, all of the time, under all conditions, there wouldn't be a continuing debate about replacing 5.56 NATO.

As I see it, the question is this: Is there enough data available to determine which calibers have produced a high percentage of incapacitation for non-CNS hits in actual combat? (I don't fully trust gel tests.) If so, wouldn't that better tell us what caliber is optimal, than any theoretical "studies"?

Stan,

I doubt that there is any caliber that will give you what everyone is looking for. Just as in hunting no magnum caliber will make up for a lousy shot, or better put, bad shot placement. With that said all the past/present calibers used by the militaries have often wounded and not killed. With the worlds attitude today, isn't that what they would what from war? Or is it because a soldier has a horrible wound he'd be better off dead?

Hate to talk about this, but here goes to give you an example of a supposedly good military caliber and how the human body can do funny things to a bullet. An incident in Vietnam was that an American soldier shot a captured Viet Cong soldier and fired his M14 at point blank range from a direct 90 degrees and level with his face. The bullet struck his jaw bone and it make a 90 come out the lower jaw and went into his shoulder not killing him. Bullets do crazy things when in the body. A friend and his wife were facing one another and fooling with a 22 RF derringer when the pistol went off. The bullet struck my friend in the inside of the elbow, traveled up his arm, went around the shoulder, then lodges halfway down his back!! Talk about penetration!!!!!!!!! Anyways that's pretty crazy too.

Joe

Stan, I doubt that there is any caliber that will give you what everyone is looking for. Just as in hunting no magnum caliber will make up for a lousy shot, or better put, bad shot placement.
Joe, if caliber truly makes no difference in terminal effectiveness, why are people pushing for 6.5 Grendel (and 6.8 SPC) to replace 5.56 NATO?

Why should the military spend the time and $$$ to switch to a cartridge that's 50% heavier and bulkier, if shot placement is the only factor that matters?

Joe, if caliber truly makes no difference in terminal effectiveness, why are people pushing for 6.5 Grendel (and 6.8 SPC) to replace 5.56 NATO?

Why should the military spend the time and $$$ to switch to a cartridge that's 50% heavier and bulkier, if shot placement is the only factor that matters?


Well Stan I think the dislike for the 5.56 started when they adopted the M4 carbine with shorter barrel that cuts some of the performance. Then they were talking long shots with those carbines at insurgents with ammo pouch vests on and other clothing further hampering the already tuned down round due to the shorter barrel.

I'm not hearing anyone in the military officially say they are testing the 6.5 Grendel. I have lots of friends still in too. Seems interest in the 6.8 has waned too.

They will find something to bitch about no matter what cartridge they go too.
If whoever asked me would I want my combat rifle in 6.5 Grendel or a necked down 7.62x39 to 6.5 I'd take the 6.5x39. I'm not convinced such an almost straight wall cartridge like the Grendel could survive dirt enhanced feeding problems.

Joe

Joe, if caliber truly makes no difference in terminal effectiveness, why are people pushing for 6.5 Grendel (and 6.8 SPC) to replace 5.56 NATO?

Why should the military spend the time and $$$ to switch to a cartridge that's 50% heavier and bulkier, if shot placement is the only factor that matters?

Speaking for myself, not only would I advocate it replacing 5.56N but also 7.62N.

Anyway, a combat cartridge needs to perform not only in soft tissue, but also in penetration of intermediate barriers.

There'd probably be little reason to switch from 5.56 if we were only shooting unarmored opponents in the open. Although, one could argue that, in the case of fragmenting bullets, that a larger "cone" of fragments from a bullet with larger mass increases one's odds of hitting a vital structure. I generally accept this, except that I would say the percentage increase in odds is smaller than proponents of this school of thought would have us believe.

Further, I don't actually believe in the "fragmenting bullet" school of thought for infantry combat because I want penetration first and foremost. I do give a nod to maximizing soft tissue destruction within the parameters defined by increased barrier penetration by creating a 6.5mm FMJ with an air cavity in the nose for early yaw. Actually, that Japanese bullet seems well-designed: thick jacket in front for penetration; fat lead in the rear to shift the center of balance for early yaw.

Because I place emphasis on penetration of intermediate barriers in combat, I believe the increased bullet mass of 6.5 over 5.56 is desired.

Further, I like the fact that the 6.5 vs. 5.56 delivers increased bullet mass further, hitting harder at long range, and more accurately than 5.56 (in terms of wind drift). Not only would we use 65G for ARs, but also LMGs and DMRs.

Compared to 7.62N, the arguments about shot placement again apply. I don't think we'll see much difference between well-placed shots, and, conversely, poorly placed shots, between 7.62N and 65G. Thus negating any perceived advantage for the heavier caliber.

And, of course, 65G is lighter than 7.62N ammunition and weapons, so gives a weight advantage.

It's possible the lesser mass of a 6.5mm relative to a 7.62mm would give poorer performance in substances like concrete, but that would be one of the compromises.

To summarize:

1. We want 65G over 556N because of superior performance in penetrating and after penetrating intermediate barriers.

2. We want 65G over 556N because of superior long-range external and terminal ballistics.

3. We want 65G over 762N because it meets or beats long-range external ballistics with less recoil, while allowing more rounds per given weight, and allowing handier-sized weapons. We compromise on barrier penetration, although testing would have to confirm just how close 65G could get to 762N in wood, concrete, brick, body armor, soldier equipment, sheet metal, glass, and sand.

4. All three cartridges are a wash when shooting unarmored opponents in the open, terminal and wound incapacitation effects being, largely, a function of shot placement. I give a slight advantage to bigger bullets, but I think it's statistically insignificant in the real world. And, remember, the advantage of bigger bullets can be somewhat negated by higher recoil, which, yet again, factors into shot placement.

John

John,

You're describing a one rifle does it all in my opinion. Can't have that. You can't have a rifle that can take the enemy out at 900 yards and use the same weapon to clear houses, which seems to be the name of the game lately. The big shift from large cartridges to smaller really began because it was realized that combat distances have decreased dramatically. Remember when bolt rifles have magazine cut off on them? What do yo think those were for? So they could shoot at the enemy at long distances and retain a full magazine when they needed the speed of a repeater with a magazine. Those days are over. A military today just can't have one pistol and one rifle for everything. They have multiple weapons today.

I feel you keep bringing up that the Grendel throws a superior bullet better for longer distance just because of it's high sectional density and high ballistic coefficient. You will have your snipers, artillery, mortar, airforce, etc., taking the enemy out at longer ranges. Most often in battle today they don't want to engage the enemy at a long distance because they'd rather plan someting and get them close to rid of them.

Joe

Based on studies I did while in Japan I would say that politics played a larger role than the technical merits or limitations of either round. Also, analysis of of battles often failed to account for logistical or engineering weaknesses. This led to decisions based on national pride or other factors that were irrelevant to battle effectiveness. There was also a great deal of infighting within the various military and political groups which resulted in a chaotic decision making process. The Japanese did have a great deal of advanced technology but this was seldom put to use in the most effective way possible.

John, You're describing a one rifle does it all in my opinion. Can't have that. You can't have a rifle that can take the enemy out at 900 yards and use the same weapon to clear houses, which seems to be the name of the game lately.
Joe, although shorter weapons are obviously nice to have in urban combat, history contradicts the idea that it can't be done with a 900-yard weapon. American troops in WWII fought quite successfully in French and German towns, despite being armed with M1 rifles, M1918A2 BARs, and M1919A6 LMGs, all of which are considerably longer than the M4 carbine and M249 Para. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhFPHr0OPHI&feature=related

Based on studies I did while in Japan I would say that politics played a larger role than the technical merits or limitations of either round.
Please elaborate. In what way(s) did "politics" affect the decision?

Joe, although shorter weapons are obviously nice to have in urban combat, history contradicts the idea that it can't be done with a 900-yard weapon. American troops in WWII fought quite successfully in French and German towns, despite being armed with M1 rifles, M1918A2 BARs, and M1919A6 LMGs, all of which are considerably longer than the M4 carbine and M249 Para. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhFPHr0OPHI&feature=related


And you forget the shorter weapons they had too like Thompson, grease gun, Reising, and M1 carbine. You know very well what the Germans had. You're wrong Stan, they had to make do with what they had, there wasn't a lot arms experiments going on for us, was the Germans though and see what they came up with did you, the Stg44. The French didn't get to field it as the Germans were invading their country, but they escaped with the developers and blueprints of the MAS 49/56 the rifle they used very long after WWII.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to fight room to room with a long Mosin Nagant or a big clubby M1 Garand. The Russian's didn't either, they used the PPsH41. The Germans automatically set themselves up for urban warfare with the MP44.

Joe

Please elaborate. In what way(s) did "politics" affect the decision?


Stan,

Probably the same way as politics in the U.S. picked the M1 Garand, then the M14 over FN FAL, and the M16 over the M14.

Joe

And you forget the shorter weapons they had too like Thompson, grease gun, Reising, and M1 carbine.
No, I didn't forget them, Joe. I intentionally ignored them, because (a.) they are not 900-yard weapons (which is what you talked about), and (b.) they were special purpose weapons, not general issue to riflemen, as was the M1 rifle.

And my post addressed only what US troops used in house-to-house fighting, so don't try to confuse the issue by bringing in French, German and Russian weapons -- I said nothing about them, and they are not relevant to what Americans used.

I'm not clouding the issue. If anyone is it's Grendellzer with his 6.5 Grendel can do it all .

The Thompson, M1 carbine, and other's weren't exactly specialized weapons either. Of course an M1 was going to get issued to riflemen, but Thompsons got issued pretty regularly and were wide spread as was the M1 carbine.

The 900 yard thing was sarcasm.

Joe

I'm not clouding the issue. If anyone is it's Grendellzer with his 6.5 Grendel can do it all .
Nah, he ain't clouding the issue. He might be mistaken in thinking that 6.5 Grendel is good enough to be a "do it all" cartridge, but the concept of one caliber for all weapons has been used in the past. Personally, I'm doubtful that 6.5 Grendel has sufficient performance to be able to replace 7.62 NATO, but I'd like to see adequate testing done to confirm or refute the idea.
The Thompson, M1 carbine, and other's weren't exactly specialized weapons either. Of course an M1 was going to get issued to riflemen, but Thompsons got issued pretty regularly and were wide spread as was the M1 carbine.
Yes, but the point is that you said having one rifle that does it all is something we can't have. ("You can't have a rifle that can take the enemy out at 900 yards and use the same weapon to clear houses...") That is clearly wrong, because it's been done before. In WWII the primary weapon in the infantry squad was the M1 Garand, a rifle that was capable of long range shooting, and despite being nearly four feet in length, it was used successfully in house-to-house combat.

So, history says that it not only can be done, it has been done. Therefore, with the post-WWII advances in small arms technology, I see no reason to think it can't be done again. The only question is, will it?

Nah, he ain't clouding the issue. He might be mistaken in thinking that 6.5 Grendel is good enough to be a "do it all" cartridge, but the concept of one caliber for all weapons has been used in the past. Personally, I'm doubtful that 6.5 Grendel has sufficient performance to be able to replace 7.62 NATO, but I'd like to see adequate testing done to confirm or refute the idea.

Yes, but the point is that you said having one rifle that does it all is something we can't have. ("You can't have a rifle that can take the enemy out at 900 yards and use the same weapon to clear houses...") That is clearly wrong, because it's been done before. In WWII the primary weapon in the infantry squad was the M1 Garand, a rifle that was capable of long range shooting, and despite being nearly four feet in length, it was used successfully in house-to-house combat.

So, history says that it not only can be done, it has been done. Therefore, with the post-WWII advances in small arms technology, I see no reason to think it can't be done again. The only question is, will it?

Stan,

They did it with every rifle this nation has ever had, but, BUT, that doesn't mean it does it good and if the enemy has a weapon designed for house to house, room to room, urban fighting, they will kick our ass. We didn't win WWII solely by our rifle alone.

Joe

They did it with every rifle this nation has ever had, but, BUT, that doesn't mean it does it good and if the enemy has a weapon designed for house to house, room to room, urban fighting, they will kick our ass.
I didn't say that a long-barrelled rifle is a good choice for urban combat. I only noted that a long rifle -- and a long range cartridge -- can be (and has been) used successfully for MOUT.

In addition, one caliber has previously been used for infantry rifle, sniper rifle, squad automatic, and machine gun, so a single-caliber system is clearly possible.

I'm not clouding the issue. If anyone is it's Grendellzer with his 6.5 Grendel can do it all.

Just to be clear, I'll explain myself. Maybe you'll still disagree, but at least you'll know what I mean when I say replace 556N and 762N with 65G.

1. Pistols, SMGs, and PDWs: 9mm Luger or 5.7 FN or whatever other cartridge works best.

2. Assault rifles, all man-portable MGs (such as M249 and M240), DMRs: 6.5 Grendel. Vary the loading as necessary: 110 FMJ for general-purpose and 123 SMK for sniping.

3. Vehicle-mounted and tripod-mounted MGs (replacing M240): .338 Lapua. Also useful for specialized long-range sniping.

4. Vehicle-mounted heavy MG .50 cal. stays as currently employed.

5. All other combined arms as currently employed.

John

I didn't say that a long-barrelled rifle is a good choice for urban combat. I only noted that a long rifle -- and a long range cartridge -- can be (and has been) used successfully for MOUT.

In addition, one caliber has previously been used for infantry rifle, sniper rifle, squad automatic, and machine gun, so a single-caliber system is clearly possible.


STan,

They didn't have a choice but to use the long barreled rifle. The Germans started making changes: German and World War II Usage:

The Karabiner 98k saw service in all theaters of World War II that involved the German military, such as Europe, Africa, and Scandinavia. Though the Allies moved towards using semi-automatic rifles, such as the M1 Garand, the Wehrmacht retained the bolt-action Kar98k with its small five-round magazine. This was largely due to their tactical doctrine which emphasized the light machine gun as the basis of a squad's firepower. In addition, the Germans frequently preferred to use submachine guns, like the MP40, in close combat or urban warfare.

In the final year and a half of the war, the Wehrmacht began phasing out the Kar98k in favor of the new Sturmgewehr 44 (StG44) assault rifle. While the new weapon was effective, it was never produced in sufficient numbers and the Kar98k remained the primary German infantry rifle until the end of hostilities. In addition, the design also saw service with the Red Army which purchased licenses to manufacture them prior to the war. While few were produced in the Soviet Union, captured Kar98ks were used widely by the Red Army during its early war arms shortage.

A carbine is a firearm
Firearm

A firearm is a tool that projects either single or multiple projectiles at high velocity through a controlled explosion. The firing is achieved by the gases produced through rapid, confined combustion of a propellant....
similar to a rifle
Rifle

A rifle is a firearm designed to be fired from the shoulder, with a barrel that has a helical groove or pattern of grooves cut into the barrel walls....
or musket
Musket

A musket is a Muzzle -loaded, smoothbore long gun, which is intended to be fired from the shoulder.Usually, the musket is thought to be the weapon that replaced the arquebus, and was in turn replaced by the rifle....
, but generally shorter and of lesser power. Many carbines, especially modern designs, were developed from rifles, being essentially shortened versions of full rifles firing the same ammunition
Ammunition

Ammunition, often referred to as ammo, is a generic term derived from the French language la munition which embraced all material used for war , but which in time came to refer specifically to gunpowder and artillery....
, although often at a lower velocity
Velocity

In physics, velocity is defined as the Derivative of Position vector. It is a vector physical quantity; both speed and direction are required to define it....
. There have also been many cases where the carbine and rifle adopted by a particular nation were not technically related, such as using completely different ammunition or internal operating systems (though the carbine still being weaker, or of smaller size). Either may be more common, depending on the time period. There are also a limited number of pistol-caliber carbines, designed by integrating the action of a handgun such as a revolver
Revolver

A revolver is a repeating firearm that has a Cylinder containing multiple Chamber and at least one Gun barrel for firing. As the user cocks the hammer , the cylinder revolves to align the next chamber and round with the hammer and barrel, which gives this type of firearm its name....
or autoloader into a longer weapon with a rifle barrel and stock. They are generally employed as a more accurate alternative to a traditional handgun, and are used by some police teams and by civilian sport shooters.

In the 1800s, foot soldiers
Infantry

Infantry are soldiers who are primarily trained for the role of fighting on foot. A soldier in the infantry is known as an infantryman. Infantry units have more physically demanding training than other branches of armies, and place a greater emphasis on fitness, physical strength and aggression....
would have a longer, more powerful firearm, and cavalry a shorter, lighter firearm.

The shorter length and lighter weight of carbines makes them easier to handle in close-quarter combat situations (such as urban
Urban warfare

Urban warfare is modern warfare conducted in urban areas such as towns and city. As a distinction, warfare conducted in population centers before the 20th century is generally considered Siege....
or jungle warfare
Jungle warfare

Jungle warfare is a term used to cover the special techniques needed for military units to survive and fight in jungle . It has been the topic of extensive study by military strategists, and was an important part of the planning for both sides in many conflicts, including World War II and the Vietnam War....
), or when deploying from vehicles
List of military vehicles

Military vehicles include all land combat and transportation vehicles, excluding rail-based, which are designed for or are in significant use by military armed forces throughout the world....
. Carbines have higher penetration capabilities than submachine gun
Submachine gun

A submachine gun is a firearm that combines the automatic firearm of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol, and is usually between the two in weight and size....
s, while retaining standardized ammunition unlike personal defense weapon
Personal defense weapon

A personal defense weapon is a compact semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing an armor-piercing round which gives a PDW better range, accuracy and damage capability than a submachine gun firing pistol-caliber cartridges....
s that use proprietary cartridges. The disadvantages of carbines, when compared with their longer counterparts, are generally poorer long-range accuracy and shorter effective range, while also generally being larger than submachine guns and thus harder to maneuver in close quarters. Like full-sized assault rifles, carbines have higher muzzle blast and recoil and may overpenetrate
Stopping power

Stopping power is a colloquial term used to describe the ability of a firearm or other weapon to cause a penetrating ballistic injury to a target human or animal, an injury sufficient to incapacitate the target where it stands....
.

History

Early history: before the 1900s
The carbine was originally a lighter, shortened, rifled weapon developed for the cavalry, for whom a full-length musket or rifle was too heavy and awkward to fire from horseback. Some sources derive the name of the weapon from the name of its first users—cavalry troopers called "carabins", hence French "carabine". Carbines were usually less accurate and powerful than the longer rifles of the infantry, due to a shorter sight
Sight (device)

A sight is an optical device used to assist aim by guiding the eye and aligning it with a weapon or other item to be pointed. Various forms of sights exist, such as iron sights, reflex sights, peep sights, and telescopic sights....
plane and lower velocity of bullets fired from the shortened barrel. With the advent of fast-burning smokeless powder
Smokeless powder

Smokeless powder is the name given to a number of propellants used in firearms and artillery which produce negligible smoke when fired, unlike the older gunpowder which they replaced....
, the velocity disadvantages of the shorter barrels became less of an issue (see internal ballistics
Internal ballistics

Internal ballistics, a subfield of ballistics, is the study of a projectile's behavior from the time its propellant's igniter is initiated until it exits the gun barrel....
). Eventually, the use of horse-mounted cavalry would decline, but carbines continued to be issued and used by many who preferred a lighter, more compact weapon even at the cost of reduced long-range accuracy and power.

During the nineteenth century, carbines were often developed separately from the infantry rifles, and in many cases did not even use the same ammunition, which made for supply difficulties. A notable weapon developed towards the end of the American Civil War
American Civil War

The American Civil War , also known as the War Between the States and several Naming the American Civil War, was a civil war in the United States....
by the Union was the Spencer carbine. It had a spring-powered magazine
Magazine (firearm)

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm or removable ....
in the stock which held seven rounds. In the late 1800s it became common for a number of nations to make bolt-action
Bolt-action

The term bolt action refers to a type of firearm action in which the weapon's Bolt is operated manually by the opening and closing of the Breech-loading weapon with a small handle, most commonly placed on the right-hand side of the weapon....
rifles in both full-length and carbine versions. One of the most popular and recognizable carbines was the Winchester lever-action
Lever-action

Lever-action is a type of firearm action which uses a lever located around the trigger guard area to load fresh Cartridge into the Chamber of the Barrel when the lever is worked....
carbine, with several versions using revolver
Revolver

A revolver is a repeating firearm that has a Cylinder containing multiple Chamber and at least one Gun barrel for firing. As the user cocks the hammer , the cylinder revolves to align the next chamber and round with the hammer and barrel, which gives this type of firearm its name....
cartridges
Cartridge (firearms)

A cartridge, also called a round, packages the bullet, gunpowder and Percussion cap into a single metallic case precisely made to fit the firing chamber of a firearm....
. This made it an ideal choice for cowboys and explorers, who could carry a revolver and a carbine, both using the same ammunition.

Shorter rifles, shorter carbines: World War I and World War II
In the decades preceding World War I
World War I

World War I, or the First World War , was a global military conflict which involved the Great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies of World War I and the Central Powers....
, the standard battle rifle used by armies around the world had been growing shorter, either by redesign or by the general issue of carbine versions instead of full-length rifles. For example, the Russian Model 1891 rifle with an 800 mm (31.5 inch) barrel was shortened to 730 mm (28.75 in.) in 1930, and to 510 mm (20 in.) in 1938; the German Mauser
Mauser

Mauser is a German arms manufacturer, maker of a line of bolt-action rifles and pistols from the 1870s to present. Their designs were built for the German armed forces but have been exported and licensed to a number of countries since the later Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries, as well as being a popular civilian firearm....
98 rifles went from 740 mm (29 in.) in 1898 to 600 mm (23.6 in.) in 1935 as the Karabiner Kurz (K98k or Kar98k), or "short carbine". The barrel lengths in rifles used by the United States
United States

The United States of America is a Federal government constitutional republic comprising U.S. state and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its Contiguous United States and Washington, D.C., the Capital districts and territories, lie between the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Oceans, Borders of the U...
did not change between the bolt-action
Bolt-action

The term bolt action refers to a type of firearm action in which the weapon's Bolt is operated manually by the opening and closing of the Breech-loading weapon with a small handle, most commonly placed on the right-hand side of the weapon....
M1903 rifle of World War I
World War I

World War I, or the First World War , was a global military conflict which involved the Great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies of World War I and the Central Powers....
and the World War II
World War II

World War II, or the Second World War , was a global military conflict which involved a Participants in World War II, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies of World War II and the Axis powers....
M1 Garand rifle, but then the 610 mm (24 in.) barrel on the M1903 was short for its day. The US M1 Carbine
M1 Carbine

The M1 Carbine is a lightweight Semi-automatic firearm carbine that became a standard firearm in the Military of the United States during World War II and the Korean War, and was produced in several variants....
was more of a traditional carbine in that it was significantly shorter and lighter, with a 457.2 mm (18 in. barrel), than the M1 Garand rifle. The M1 Carbine was not a shorter version of the M1 Garand, but a wholly different design firing a smaller, less-powerful cartridge, as was common in the 1800s.
Jungle Carbine
The United Kingdom
United Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom , the UK or Britain,is a sovereign state located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe....
also developed a "Jungle Carbine
Jungle Carbine

Jungle Carbine was an informal term used for the Rifle No. 5 Mk I which was a derivative of the British Lee-Enfield, designed especially for fighting in the Far East and Burma and other terrain where the length and weight of the standard rifle made it unsuitable....
" version of their Lee-Enfield
Lee-Enfield

The Lee-Enfield bolt-action, magazine-fed, repeating rifle was the main firearm used by the military forces of the British Empire/Commonwealth of Nations during the first half of the 20th century....
service rifle, featuring a shorter barrel, flash hider, and manufacturing modifications designed to decrease the rifle's weight. Officially titled Rifle, No. 5 Mk I, it was introduced in the closing months of WWII, but did not see widespread service until the Korean War
Korean War

The Korean War refers to a period of military conflict between North Korea and South Korea regimes, with major hostilities lasting from June 25, 1950 until the armistice signed on July 27, 1953....
, the Mau Mau uprising
Mau Mau Uprising

The Mau Mau Uprising of 1952 to 1960 was an insurgency by Kenyan rebels against the United Kingdom Colonial rule. The core of the resistance was formed by members of the Kikuyu ethnic group, along with smaller numbers of Embu and Ameru....
, and the Malayan Emergency
Malayan Emergency

The Malayan Emergency refers to a guerrilla warfare for independence fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan Races Liberation Army, the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960; some have gone as far as to characterise it as a civil war....
.

After World War II
A shorter weapon was more convenient when riding in a truck, armored personnel carrier, helicopter
Helicopter

A helicopter is an aircraft that is Lift and propelled by one or more horizontal plane Helicopter rotors, each rotor consisting of two or more rotor blades....
or aircraft, and also when engaged in close-range combat. Based on the combat experience of WWII, the criteria used for selecting infantry weapons began to change. Unlike previous wars, which were often fought mainly from fixed lines and trenches, WWII was a highly mobile war, often fought in cities, forests, or other areas where mobility and visibility were restricted. In addition, improvements in artillery
Artillery

Artillery is a military Combat Arms which employs any apparatus, machine, an assortment of tools or instruments, a system or systems used as weapons for the discharge of large projectiles in combat as a major contribution of fire power within the overall military capability of an armed force....
made moving infantry in open areas even less practical than it had been.

The majority of enemy contacts were at ranges of less than 300 meters (325 yards), and the enemy was exposed to fire for only short periods of time as they moved from cover to cover. Most rounds fired were not aimed at an enemy combatant, but instead fired in the enemy's direction to keep them from moving and firing back (see suppressive fire
Suppressive fire

Suppressive fire is a term used in military science for firing weapons at or in the direction of enemy forces with the primary goal of reducing their ability to defend themselves or return fire, by forcing them to remain under cover....
). These situations did not require a heavy rifle, firing full-power rifle bullets with long-range accuracy. A less-powerful weapon would still produce casualties at the shorter ranges encountered in actual combat, and the reduced recoil would allow more shots to be fired in the short amount of time an enemy was visible. The lower-powered round would also weigh less, allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition. With no need of a long barrel to fire full-power ammunition, a shorter barrel could be used. A shorter barrel made the weapon weigh less and was easier to handle in tight spaces, and was easier to shoulder quickly to fire a shot at an unexpected target. Full-automatic
Automatic firearm

An automatic firearm is a firearm that fires, automatically extracts the used Cartridge case from the barrel and ejects it, then loads a new case into the barrel; generally by harnessing the recoil of the cartridge's explosion....
fire was also considered a desirable feature, allowing the soldier to fire short bursts of three to five rounds, increasing the probability of a hit on a moving target.

The Germans had experimented with selective-fire carbines firing rifle cartridges during the early years of WWII. These were determined to be less than ideal, as the recoil of full-power rifle cartridges caused the weapon to be uncontrollable in full-automatic fire. They then developed an intermediate-power cartridge round, which was accomplished by reducing the power and the length of the standard 7.92x57 Mauser rifle cartridge to create the 7.92x33 Kurz (Short) cartridge. A selective-fire weapon was developed to fire this shorter cartridge, eventually resulting in the Sturmgewehr 44
Sturmgewehr 44

The StG 44 was an assault rifle developed in Nazi Germany during World War II and was the first of its kind to see major deployment. It is also known under the designations MP 43 and MP 44 , which denotes earlier development versions of the same weapon....
, later translated as "assault rifle
Assault rifle

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire . Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern Army, having largely superseded or supplemented battle rifles such as the World War II-era M1 Garand rifle and SVT-40....
". After WWII, the USSR would adopt a similar weapon, the legendary AK-47
AK-47

The AK-47 is a 7.62x39mm assault rifle developed in the Soviet Union by Mikhail Kalashnikov in two versions: the fixed stock AK-47 and the AKS-47 variant equipped with an underfolding metal shoulder stock....
, which became the standard Soviet infantry weapon. The United States during WWII also had the M2 Carbine
M1 Carbine

The M1 Carbine is a lightweight Semi-automatic firearm carbine that became a standard firearm in the Military of the United States during World War II and the Korean War, and was produced in several variants....
, a selective-fire version of the M1 Carbine
M1 Carbine

The M1 Carbine is a lightweight Semi-automatic firearm carbine that became a standard firearm in the Military of the United States during World War II and the Korean War, and was produced in several variants....
firing a 7.62x33mm cartridge. However, the semi-automatic M1 carbine was produced in a 10-to-1 ratio to the M2.

Although the NATO
NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization , also called the Atlantic Alliance, is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949....
countries did not adopt an intermediate-power round, they continued the trend toward shorter and lighter magazine
Magazine (firearm)

A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm. Magazines may be integral to the firearm or removable ....
-fed battle rifles. NATO adopted the 7.62x51 NATO round (which in reality is only slightly different ballistically to the .308 Winchester
.308 Winchester

The .308 Winchester is a rifle round and is the commercial version of the military 7.62x51mm NATO centerfire cartridge. The .308 Winchester was introduced in 1952, two years prior to the NATO adoption of the 7.62x51mm NATO T65, Winchester Repeating Arms Company branded the cartridge and introduced it to the commercial hunting market as the ....
and .303 British
.303 British

.303 British, or 7.7mmx56R, is a .311 inch calibre rifle and machine gun Cartridge first developed in United Kingdom in the 1880s as a blackpowder round, later adapted to use cordite and then smokeless powder propellant....
cartridges), along with several rifles such as the FN FAL
FN FAL

The Fusil Automatique L?ger or FAL is a 7.62x51 NATO Self-loading rifle, selective fire rifle produced by the Belgian armaments manufacturer Fabrique Nationale de Herstal during the Cold War, and adopted by many North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries....
and M14.

By the 1960s NATO had adopted the 5.56 NATO cartridge. This round was even lighter and smaller than the Soviet AK-47 cartridge, but possessed higher velocity. In U.S. service, the M16
M16 rifle

M16 is the Military of the United States designation for a family of rifles derived from the ArmaLite AR-15 and further developed by Colt's Manufacturing Company starting in the mid-20th century....
assault rifle replaced the M14 as the standard infantry
Infantry

Infantry are soldiers who are primarily trained for the role of fighting on foot. A soldier in the infantry is known as an infantryman. Infantry units have more physically demanding training than other branches of armies, and place a greater emphasis on fitness, physical strength and aggression....
weapon, although the M14 continued to be used by designated marksmen.

Lighter carbines came to be adopted as the standard infantry long rifle. What changed was that only a certain number of soldiers now needed to retain longer range weapons, serving as designated marksmen. Development of lighter assault rifles continued, matched by developments in even lighter carbines. At the same time the infantry switched to 5.56 mm weapons, carbines like the AKS-74U (which fired a Warsaw pact 5.45x39 round) and CAR-15
CAR-15

The Colt Automatic Rifle-15 Military Weapons System or CAR-15 was a family of AR-15 and M16 rifle-based firearms marketed by Colt's Manufacturing Company in the late 1960s and early 1970s....
were being developed.

Modern history

Contemporary military forces
By the 1990s, the US had adopted the M4 Carbine, a derivative of the M16 family which was lighter and shorter (in overall length and barrel length), resulting in reduced range and power.

Meanwhile, many armies are experiencing a backlash against carbines and lighter rifles in general, and are equipping selected soldiers, usually called Designated Marksmen
Designated marksman

The Designated Marksman is a military marksman role in a U.S. infantry squad. The term sniper is used in Soviet and Russian doctrine. The analogous role in the Israeli tzahal is "squad sniper."...
, or DM, with higher power rifles. While firing a higher quantity of smaller bullets makes it easier to hit a target (and is therefore good for beginner marksmen), it offers very little to more advanced marksmen. Furthermore, the additional range of the heavier weapons has proven to be necessary in open environments such as deserts. As a result, the focus on more highly trained soldiers equipped with, for example, 7.62 mm NATO firing rifles, such as the U.S. Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle
U.S. Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle

The United States Marine Corps Designated Marksman Rifle is a Semi-automatic firearm, Gas-operated reloading rifle chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO Cartridge ....
variant of the M14, has increased somewhat. A squad of soldiers armed with assault rifles would have a single soldier assigned as DM who would carry a battle rifle for selectively engaging long range targets. The DM differs from the sniper in that the DM moves with his unit, and engages targets at ranges beyond the 500 metre (550 yd) effective range of modern assault rifles, but less than the 600 metre (650 yd) range which is the optimal engagement range for snipers.

Special operations forces
One bastion of the carbine which is unlikely to be unseated is the special operations forces of the world which need to perform fast, decisive operations. A pistol, though light and quick to operate, is viewed as not having enough power. Consequently, carbines have gained wide acceptance among SOCOM
United States Special Operations Command

The United States Special Operations Command is the Unified Combatant Command charged with overseeing the various Special forces Commands of the United States Army, United States Air Force, United States Navy and United States Marine Corps of the United States Military of the United States....
and other communities.

Personal defense weapons
In both civilian use and among the military's lighter armored soldiers, it is common to use a carbine. However, due to some of the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this article, such as muzzle blast and recoil, these carbines generally chamber lighter rounds than some of their heavier (or shorter) counterparts. Due to the low wounding power of a single round, personal defense weapons depend on high volumes of fire for effectiveness. This may make such carbines successful in military use. In civilian use where fully automatic fire is illegal, acceptance may be lower as a pistol involves single shots. However, firing a pistol effectively at any significant range requires good training, since the absence of a buttstock makes precise ranged aim difficult.

In addition, due to the development of body armor, support personnel required a compact weapon with more stopping power than the traditional submachine gun, leading to the development of the personal defense weapon
Personal defense weapon

A personal defense weapon is a compact semi-automatic or fully-automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing an armor-piercing round which gives a PDW better range, accuracy and damage capability than a submachine gun firing pistol-caliber cartridges....
, or PDW, which uses rounds that have better ballistics
Ballistics

Ballistics is the science of mechanics that deals with the flight, behavior, and effects of projectiles, especially bullets, gravity bombs, rockets, or the like; the science or art of designing and accelerating projectiles so as to achieve a desired performance....
than simple pistol rounds but less power and range than full rifle rounds. Examples include the FN P90
FN P90

The P90 is a Belgium designed submachine gun. The weapon?s name is an abbreviation of Project 90, which specifies a weapon system of the 1990s....
and HK MP7. Whether these ultra-light weapons will be widely adopted has yet to be seen. The cartridge used by the FN P90, the 5.7 x 28 mm, for example, fires a 2.9 g (45 grain) armor piercing bullet at velocities of around 700 m/s (2300 ft/s). The H&K MP7 fires an even smaller 4.6 mm round with ballistics similar to the .22 WMR derived .17 Hornady Magnum Rimfire. The small diameter rounds enable the projectile to travel at the high velocity needed to penetrate Kevlar
Kevlar

Kevlar is the registered trademark for a light, strong aramid synthetic fiber, related to other aramids such as Nomex and Technora.Developed at DuPont in 1965 by Stephanie Kwolek it was first commercially used in the early 1970s as a replacement for steel in racing tires....
armor, as a light weapon with sufficient energy to push a large caliber bullet through the armor would have prohibitive recoil. The small bullets are generally designed to tumble after penetration.

Some weapons designed for personal defence do still use full-power ammunition, for example the carbine version of the L85A2 issued to British tank crews.

Future acceptance and use
To what extent armies will adopt even lighter carbines, and to what extent they will be avoided, has yet to be seen entirely. It is likely that harder hitting, or at least higher penetrating, weapons will become more common, due to a rise in use of body armor, making weaker weapons ineffective. Stacked against this is mainly the amount of urban warfare that is required, which favors lighter carbine weapons.

The modern usage of the term carbine covers much the same scope as it always had, namely lighter weapons (generally rifles) with barrels less than 457.2 mm (18 inches). These weapons can be considered carbines, while rifles with barrels of 510 mm (20 inches) or more are generally not considered carbines unless specifically named so, and depending on the weapon's power. Modern carbines use ammunition ranging from that used in light pistols up to powerful rifle cartridges, with the usual exception of high velocity magnum cartridges. In the more powerful cartridges, the short barrel of a carbine has significant disadvantages in velocity, and the high residual pressure when the bullet exits the barrel results in substantially greater muzzle blast. Flash suppressor
Flash suppressor

A flash suppressor, also known as a flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, or flash cone, is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle or other gun that directs the hot gases as they leave the barrel....
s and muzzle brakes are common solutions to this problem, which may ease their acceptance.

Usage

Pistol-caliber carbines

One of the more unusual classes of carbine is the pistol caliber carbine. These first appeared soon after metallic cartridges became common. These were developed as "companions" to the popular revolvers of the day, firing the same cartridge but allowing more velocity and accuracy than the revolver. These were carried by cowboys, lawmen, and others in the Old West. The classic combination would be a Winchester
Winchester rifle

The term Winchester rifle is frequently used to describe any of the lever-action rifles manufactured in the United States by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company, although the name is usually more specifically used in reference to the Winchester Model 1873 or the Winchester Model 1894 rifles....
lever action carbine and a Colt
Colt's Manufacturing Company

Colt's Manufacturing Company is a United States firearms manufacturer founded in 1847. It is best known for the engineering, production, and marketing of dozens of different firearms over the later half of the 19th and the 20th century....
revolver in .44-40 or .45 Colt. Another example is the DeLisle carbine that was chambered for .45 ACP.

Modern equivalents also exist, such as the discontinued Ruger Police Carbine
Ruger Police Carbine

The Ruger Carbine, or Police Carbine, is a pistol caliber carbine designed as a companion to the Sturm, Ruger P Series pistols. As of 2007, Ruger has discontinued production citing low demand....
, which uses the same magazine as the Ruger pistols of the same caliber, as well as the (also discontinued) Marlin Camp Carbine (which, in .45ACP, used 1911 magazines). The Beretta Cx4 Storm
Beretta Cx4 Storm

The Beretta Cx4 Storm is a pistol-caliber carbine aimed at the sporting, personal defense and law enforcement markets. Seven different models accept full-size Beretta magazines from the Beretta 92, Beretta 8000, and Beretta Px4 series pistols in 9x21 IMI , 9x19mm Parabellum, .40 S&W and .45 ACP....
shares magazines with many Beretta
Beretta

Fabbrica d'Armi Pietro Beretta is a major Italy firearm manufacturing company. Its firearms are used world-wide by civilians, police, and armies....
pistols, and is designed to be complementary to the Beretta Px4 Storm
Beretta Px4 Storm

The Beretta Px4 Storm is a semi-automatic pistol manufactured by Beretta of Italy and intended for personal defense and law enforcement use. The Px4 uses the same short-recoil, rotating barrel lock as the Beretta 8000 Models and uses exactly the same operating system as the Beretta 92, while being completely different in design from either....
pistol. The Hi-Point 995 carbine
Hi-Point 995 Carbine

The Hi-Point carbine, is a series of carbines chambered for 9x19mm Parabellum and .40 S&W. They are very inexpensive, constructed using polymers and alloyed metals as much as possible, resulting in a reduction of the production costs and sale price....
is a cheaper alternative to other pistol caliber carbines in the United States
United States

The United States of America is a Federal government constitutional republic comprising U.S. state and a federal district. The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its Contiguous United States and Washington, D.C., the Capital districts and territories, lie between the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Oceans, Borders of the U...
and shares magazines with the Hi-Point C-9 pistol, other examples are the Kel-Tec
Kel-Tec

Kel-Tec CNC Industries Inc. is a United States manufacturer of firearms. Founded in 1991 and based in Cocoa, Florida, the company has manufactured firearms since 1995, starting with small, affordable semi-automatic pistols and expanding to rifles....
Sub-2000 series which accepts Glock, Beretta and S&W pistol magazines chambered in either 9 mm Luger or .40S&W. The recent introduction of such products may indicate that there is a growing demand for these companion carbines.

The primary advantages of a pistol caliber carbine are increased accuracy due to the buttstock and longer barrel (and with it, sight radius), relatively low muzzle blast/flash/recoil, higher muzzle velocity and energy of a longer barrel for increased wounding potential and penetration (depending on the particular load used), and (sometimes, but not always) greater adapatability for easily accepting accessories such as optics, weaponlights, and lasers. Furthermore, PCCs may not be as legally restricted as comparable handguns, depending on the jurisdiction (for example, you need only be 18 in the US to purchase a rifle, but you must be at least 21 to purchase a handgun).

One less-noted advantage of PCCs is their lower muzzle report compared to more powerful rifles; because they are less noisy when fired, they are less likely to cause permanent hearing damage when fired indoor without hearing protection - this can be an important consideration during home defense situations.

Compared to "regular" carbines/rifles (such as those in .223 and 7.62x39mm), pistol-caliber carbines may suffer from a shorter effective range, more pronounced trajectory, less power, and less effectiveness against body armor.

Recently, kits have appeared on the market which consist of a carbine length barrel, bolt (usually blowback
Blowback (arms)

Blowback is an operating system for Semi-automatic firearm firearms that uses the pressure created by combustion in the cartridge case and bore....
operated), and stock that attach to a pistol frame. Attaching the pistol frame provides the feed mechanism (through the pistol's magazine) and trigger mechanism, and produces a completed carbine. Kits of this type are available for Colt M1911 pattern and Glock
Glock

Glock GmbH is a weapons manufacturer headquartered in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria. Glock was named after its founder, Gaston Glock. The company is best known for its line of Firing pin-fired polymer-Receiver pistols....
pistols.

Short barrelled rifles
Browning Hp (finnish) With Stock
Firearms with shoulder stocks and barrels less than 406 mm (16 in) in length are classified as "short barreled rifles" (under the US National Firearms Act
National Firearms Act

The National Firearms Act is an Act of Congress passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons....
or NFA), and are sometimes restricted in the same way that sawed off shotguns and machine gun
Machine gun

A machine gun is a Automatic firearm mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire List of rifle cartridgess in quick succession from an Belt or large-capacity Magazine , typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute....
s are. Because of this, rifles with barrels of less than 406 mm (16 in), or pistols with shoulder stocks, are rare. A list of firearms not covered by the NFA due to their antique or Curio and Relic status may be found here (*); this list includes a number of carbines with barrels less than the minimum legal length. Firearms classified as machine gun
Machine gun

A machine gun is a Automatic firearm mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire List of rifle cartridgess in quick succession from an Belt or large-capacity Magazine , typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute....
s are also not subject to the barrel length restriction.

Kits exist which will convert many pistols into carbines by the addition of a shoulder stock; notable examples are the long barrelled Colt Buntline
Colt Buntline

The Colt Buntline Special is a long-barreled Colt Single Action Army revolver brought to the public attention by Stuart N. Lake in a 1931 biography of Wyatt Earp....
revolver
Revolver

A revolver is a repeating firearm that has a Cylinder containing multiple Chamber and at least one Gun barrel for firing. As the user cocks the hammer , the cylinder revolves to align the next chamber and round with the hammer and barrel, which gives this type of firearm its name....
stock, the Mauser C96
Mauser C96

The Mauser C96 , also known as the Mauser Broomhandle, is a semi-automatic pistol that was originally manufactured by Germany arms manufacturer Mauser from 1896 to 1937 Unlicenced copies of the gun were also manufactured in Spain and China in the first half of the 20th century....
"Broomhandle" holster/stock, and various others for models such as the Browning Hi-Power
Browning Hi-Power

The Browning Hi-Power is a single action, 9x19mm Parabellum semi-automatic firearm pistol. It is based on ideas conceived and patented in 1922 by American firearms inventor John Browning, and later patented by Fabrique Nationale de Herstal of Herstal, Belgium....
, Luger
Luger pistol

The Parabellum-Pistole , popularly known as the Luger, is a toggle locked, Recoil operation#Short recoil operation, semi-automatic pistol....
, Colt M1911, and the Heckler & Koch VP70
Heckler & Koch VP70

The VP70 is a 9x19mm Parabellum, 18-round, trigger only, Semi-automatic firearm/three-round burst capable polymer frame pistol manufactured by Germany arms firm Heckler & Koch GmbH....
. Since these stock additions retain the short pistol barrel (as short as 100 mm (4 inches)) they are highly restricted under the NFA; many pistols which had attachments for the stocks, including rare wartime models, were altered to remove the attachment point.

Other carbines
Another class of carbine is a semi-automatic version of a submachine gun
Submachine gun

A submachine gun is a firearm that combines the automatic firearm of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol, and is usually between the two in weight and size....
, with an extended barrel, just over 406 mm (16 inches) long, which will escape ban by some "assault weapon" legislation. While functionally identical to other carbines, these are banned in some places as "assault weapons" based on their cosmetic similarity to submachine guns. However, they may not accept certain parts (such as magazines or collapsing stocks) from the submachine guns they resemble. These are a popular compromise for (American) shooters who would like to own a submachine gun but cannot due to local restrictions or the prohibitive cost of buying a civilian legal submachine gun. Many owners may choose to shorten the barrels down to NFA-lengths, and register them as SBR
National Firearms Act

The National Firearms Act is an Act of Congress passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons....
s.

Many of the more vocal proponents of personal defense firearms typically recommend a pistol and a higher power firearm, like a carbine or a shotgun
Shotgun

A shotgun is a firearm that is usually designed to be fired from the shoulder, which uses the energy of a fixed shell to fire a number of small spherical pellets called lead shot, or a solid projectile called a shotgun slug....
.

Examples of PCCs that are Title I derivatives of submachine guns include the HK USC (derived from the HK .45ACP UMP submachine gun), the HK94 (derived from the MP5), pistol-caliber AR-15s (such as the Bushmaster Carbon 15 9 mm Carbine), and the FN PS90 (derived from the FN P90
FN P90

The P90 is a Belgium designed submachine gun. The weapon?s name is an abbreviation of Project 90, which specifies a weapon system of the 1990s....
SMG). Unlike the above-mentioned PCCs, these carbines utilize either magazines from their SMG derivatives, or proprietary magazines (as in the case of the USC).

In some historical cases the term machine carbine was the official title for sub-machine guns. Examples are the Sten
Sten

The Sten was a family of United Kingdom 9x19mm Parabellum submachine guns used extensively by Commonwealth of Nations forces throughout World War II and the Korean War....
and Owen gun
Owen Gun

The Owen Gun, which was known officially as the Owen Machine Carbine, was an Australian submachine gun designed by Evelyn Owen in 1939. The Owen was the only Australian-designed service firearm of World War II and was the main submachine gun used by the Australian Army during the war....
s. Equally to confuse the non-automatic version of the Sterling submachine gun
Sterling submachine gun

The Sterling submachine gun is a United Kingdom submachine gun which was in service with the British Army from 1953 until 1988 when it was phased out with the introduction of the SA80....
was also a "Carbine".


Joe

Joe, did you really mean to quote the entire firearms dictionary?

John

They didn't have a choice but to use the long barreled rifle.
Entirely irrelevant. The salient point is that they did fight well with the long rifle in urban combat, so it's simply incorrect to say that it can't be done.

Please elaborate. In what way(s) did "politics" affect the decision?

Stan,

Probably the same way as politics in the U.S. picked the M1 Garand, then the M14 over FN FAL, and the M16 over the M14.

Joe

Stan, at the time most of Japanese industry was completely controlled by competing economic powerhouses with unchecked power (zaibatsu). The zaibatsu had a very strong influence on politicians - they were essentially in their pockets.

Many of the purchasing and design decisions were actually made by the zaibatsu themselves. The politicians had many private conversations with industry and military leaders where the decisions were actually made. By the time open debate occurred, generally there was already a favored decision made. It is highly likely that the decision process for the switch away from 6.5 was very similar.

It should be noted that the politicians were relatively weak compared to military leaders. The military used threats or actual violence to influence political decisions. These military leaders also happened to often have strong connections to the zaibatsu.

The Allied forces considered the zaibatsu to be an obstacle to transforming the political climate in Japan after the war. The zaibatsu were such a threat that these were broken up by force and either disappeared or were transformed into the slightly less powerful corporate groups (keiretsu).

Joe, I would say that is a fair comparison.

If whoever asked me would I want my combat rifle in 6.5 Grendel or a necked down 7.62x39 to 6.5 I'd take the 6.5x39. I'm not convinced such an almost straight wall cartridge like the Grendel could survive dirt enhanced feeding problems.
I dunno if the Grendel case is that straight-walled to pose a problem, but on the subject of necking down the 7.62x39 case, I learned tonight that back in 1974 the South African military was developing a 6x39. :cool: :D

Below: 6x39 SA ---------------- 6.5 Grendel

The "straight walls" of the 6.5 Grendel case share the same taper as the newer Russian 5.45x39. They found the sharp taper of the 7.62x39 to be unnecessary. I don't believe the Russians are known for designing things to be unreliable. . . . ;)

John

P.S. Stan, very cool info about a SA 6x39. My two problems with 6mm as a military caliber are (a) it's so similar, in my mind, to 5.56 as to be redundant, and (b) I want the biggest bullet whose recoil the average recruit can handle, providing external ballistics are acceptable. Yes, I've made a somewhat subjective and arbitrary decision that that caliber is 6.5mm on top of 30 grains powder.

6.5mm or .26 cal. sits exactly in the middle of the caliber spectrum defined by .22 on the one end and .30 on the other. As you get closer to those extremes, caliber differences become more redundant.

The "straight walls" of the 6.5 Grendel case share the same taper as the newer Russian 5.45x39. They found the sharp taper of the 7.62x39 to be unnecessary. I don't believe the Russians are known for designing things to be unreliable. . . . ;)

John

P.S. Stan, very cool info about a SA 6x39. My two problems with 6mm as a military caliber are (a) it's so similar, in my mind, to 5.56 as to be redundant, and (b) I want the biggest bullet whose recoil the average recruit can handle, providing external ballistics are acceptable. Yes, I've made a somewhat subjective and arbitrary decision that that caliber is 6.5mm on top of 30 grains powder.

6.5mm or .26 cal. sits exactly in the middle of the caliber spectrum defined by .22 on the one end and .30 on the other. As you get closer to those extremes, caliber differences become more redundant.

The biggest difference in your poor example John, is that the 5.45 is a much narrower cartridge and slightly longer in the the body portion. That makes a tremendous difference in feeding. Nice try though.

Joe

Stan, very cool info about a SA 6x39. My two problems with 6mm as a military caliber are (a) it's so similar, in my mind, to 5.56 as to be redundant, and (b) I want the biggest bullet whose recoil the average recruit can handle, providing external ballistics are acceptable. Yes, I've made a somewhat subjective and arbitrary decision that that caliber is 6.5mm on top of 30 grains powder.

6.5mm or .26 cal. sits exactly in the middle of the caliber spectrum defined by .22 on the one end and .30 on the other.
John, I think I mentioned in the past that when I began researching the idea of an "optimum" military caliber, I too thought along the same line and intuitively "split the difference" between .22 and .30 caliber, as well as between 62 and 147 grains.

As Bill later decided in developing 6.5 Grendel, I concluded that an intermediate round should use high-BC projectiles in order to get long range performance. (As the German Luftwaffe recognized after the airborne invasion of Crete, it's far better to have long range capability and not need it, than to desperately need it and not have it! :eek: ) The reason I gravitated away from 105gr 6.5mm is when I saw the relatively low BC, compared to a 6mm bullet of the same weight.

I've tried to be less subjective, and more objective, in looking at this subject. I view 6mm as (a) significantly superior to 5.56mm, not at all redundant, and (b) I think that the bullet should be the minimum caliber and weight that can achieve the goal of acceptable long range capability and short range lethality/incapacitation. To opt for bigger, heavier, and more powerful than necessary is to incur a number of undesirable penalties.

Now, I'm willing to admit I may be wrong about this, but what little info I found on 6mm SAW performance is positive. Reportedly, the 105gr 6mm XM732 Ball bullet was able to penetrate a steel helmet @ 800 meters, and the XM734 Tracer provided a visible trace to 1000 meters. (IIRC, 7.62mm M80 Ball only defeated a helmet @ circa 620 meters, and M62 Tracer is visible to only about 800 meters.)

I can't help wondering if we'd even be having such discussions if the 6mm SAW had been adopted, as it could conceiveably led to the development and fielding of a rifle in the same caliber.

John,

Your third problem is that your so hung up on the 6.5 Grendel as the best military cartridge in the world. I sure hope you don't have a mental break down when it gets passed up for the military.

It's just as tiring hearing you brag up the Grendel as it is for the distracters to come into the forum and run down the Grendel, Bill, and the company.

The more you brag it up the more I'll tear it down. Lay off for a while, will you?

:D

Joe

Your third problem is that your so hung up on the 6.5 Grendel as the best military cartridge in the world.

So, Joe, then what IS the best military cartridge in the world?

You probably don't have a definitive answer, having had difficulty wrapping your head around all the variable performance requirements and compromises that must be made and then, having thoroughly considered all, making a decision.

Give us a definitive answer. Which existing cartridge is it? Or, lacking that, which theoretical cartridge is it?

You find it easy to denigrate something, can you actually stand behind something? Let's hear your choice, man.

The more you brag it up the more I'll tear it down. Lay off for a while, will you?

I can only chuckle and shake my head. You serious? You sit there and that's what actually goes through your mind? That's funny.

How about this: If you don't think a Website for fans of the 6.5 Grendel cartridge, for the 6.5 Grendel aficionado, might have some enthusiasm about the cartridge, I don't know what you expect to find.

I think you're old enough to know it's perfectly natural to find a little bragging about BMWs on Websites devoted to BMWs, and bragging about Chevys on Websites devoted to Chevys, and bragging about Fords on Websites devoted to Fords. Hope that doesn't surprise you.

John

The reason I gravitated away from 105gr 6.5mm is when I saw the relatively low BC, compared to a 6mm bullet of the same weight.

I think that's a very solid argument. If one were locked on 105gr as "the" weight, then why not go with 6mm? You get better BC, better sectional density for penetration. Also, when a 6mm bullet yaws and turns sideways, it's going to rip as big a tear as 6.5mm. Maybe you lose 25 fps in velocity vs. the 6.5mm due to the "piston effect," but no big deal.

I will admit that the further one drifts from a 120gr 6.5mm bullet, the more attractive 6mm becomes. I'd say that, as a general principle, for any equivalent bullet weight, it's better to go with the smaller caliber.

Still, I like the payload flexibility of 6.5mm, with reasonable performance from 100-130 grains, and I want the biggest chunk of lead the average recruit can handle on full auto with acceptable external ballistics.

John

So, Joe, then what IS the best military cartridge in the world?

You probably don't have a definitive answer, having had difficulty wrapping your head around all the variable performance requirements and compromises that must be made and then, having thoroughly considered all, making a decision.

Give us a definitive answer. Which existing cartridge is it? Or, lacking that, which theoretical cartridge is it?

You find it easy to denigrate something, can you actually stand behind something? Let's hear your choice, man.



I can only chuckle and shake my head. You serious? You sit there and that's what actually goes through your mind? That's funny.

How about this: If you don't think a Website for fans of the 6.5 Grendel cartridge, for the 6.5 Grendel aficionado, might have some enthusiasm about the cartridge, I don't know what you expect to find.

I think you're old enough to know it's perfectly natural to find a little bragging about BMWs on Websites devoted to BMWs, and bragging about Chevys on Websites devoted to Chevys, and bragging about Fords on Websites devoted to Fords. Hope that doesn't surprise you.

John

John,

No I don't just sit here and think that way. I read and study what is said and study the cartridge.

What is the best cartridge for the military? Hmmmm well I think that it should be in either the 6mm or 6.5mm range.....maybe maybe maybe in 7mm, but not likely. I'm looking at case capacity around the Grendel size, but the bullet definitely not loaded into the case powder area one iota. That kind of kills the M16 right there. It's been said that the 6.5 Carcano was one of the most balanced 6.5 cartridges ever devised. That would be nice, but again kills the M16...and I could never see any military going "back" to a cartridge.
I do feel the Grendel is too stubby. I think a 6.5 on the 6.8 case as interesting.

It's not so much the bragging, it's the trying to push it off as a military candidate. If that was the case they would have had more interest in it long ago.

Joe

I will admit that the further one drifts from a 120gr 6.5mm bullet, the more attractive 6mm becomes. I'd say that, as a general principle, for any equivalent bullet weight, it's better to go with the smaller caliber.

Still, I like the payload flexibility of 6.5mm, with reasonable performance from 100-130 grains, and I want the biggest chunk of lead the average recruit can handle on full auto with acceptable external ballistics.
Hasn't full-auto rifle fire been pretty much abandoned by the US military? For the average soldier, hitting a man with a full-auto burst seems to be a very short range proposition. Some years ago there was a magazine article (in Machine Gun News, IIRC) in which the author told of firing 3-rd bursts with an M16. Even with the low-recoil, 5.56 cartridge, only the first round hit the target. Each time he tried it, the other two rounds went high and right, completely missing, despite the short distance.

I suppose we could ask Variable how 6.5 Grendel fares in this regard, but with as much F-A shooting as he does, it probably wouldn't tell us much about how well the "average recruit" could do with a 6.5 G carbine.

It's not so much the bragging, it's the trying to push it off as a military candidate. If that was the case they would have had more interest in it long ago.
Not necesarily so. In the 1920s, would the US Army have sought to develop a 7mm cartridge if John Pedersen hadn't pushed for it?

I see no harm in John trying to "push" 6.5 G for military use. It's not my idea of the best possible alternative to 5.56 NATO, but it does offer some definite advantages over the smaller caliber.

Hasn't full-auto rifle fire been pretty much abandoned by the US military? For the average soldier, hitting a man with a full-auto burst seems to be a very short range proposition.

We need some military guys to speak up about this. I don't know our current military doctrine regarding full-auto fire from assault rifles.

I assume full-auto has two uses: (a) It's the centerfire equivalent of a buckshot blast in CQB warfare at under 25 yards, where you want to greatly increase your odds, via multiple hits, of putting the enemy down NOW, and (b) suppressive fire launched in the enemy's general direction.

From 25 yards on out, I'd advocate aimed, and rapidly aimed, semi-auto fire.

But I'd ask military guys to enlighten us.

John

Not necesarily so. In the 1920s, would the US Army have sought to develop a 7mm cartridge if John Pedersen hadn't pushed for it?

I see no harm in John trying to "push" 6.5 G for military use. It's not my idea of the best possible alternative to 5.56 NATO, but it does offer some definite advantages over the smaller caliber.

The U.S. Army, after WWI, sought a new cartridge that wasn't as long
as the 30-06 so at to be more suitable for full auto and semi auto weapons. It would also be lighter ammo. So two builders submitted rifles. I would imagine the Army laid out the floor plan and builders started designing. I don't think the Army is doing this presently. They, for now, are sticking with the 5.56, with a variety of different projectiles, and change the weapons that shoot them. Don't you realize the U.S. isn't going to deviate from what NATO uses?

No I don't see anything wrong with John trying to push the 6.5 G for military use, but should present such efforts to the military not the us Grendel forum members. I don't see John as having any clout for such an endeavor. Pedersen after all what an inventor and manufacturer.

Joe

The U.S. Army, after WWI, sought a new cartridge that wasn't as long as the 30-06 so at to be more suitable for full auto and semi auto weapons. It would also be lighter ammo. So two builders submitted rifles.
That's just not true, Joe. Right after WWI, Garand was hired on at Springfield Armory to develop a semi-auto rifle specifically to fire the standard .30 caliber round.

A few years later Pedersen convinced some in the Army that it wasn't feasible to make a .30 cal selfloader, and that his .276 Pedersen cartridge should be used instead. It was only at that point in time that Garand was directed to switch his rifle development effort to the smaller caliber, with Pedersen also being contracted to develop a rifle of his own design.

If not for Pedersen's intervention in pushing the lower-powered 7mm cartridge, there is no reason to think that the Army would've strayed from its quest for a .30 caliber semi-auto rifle.

Your statement that John "should present such efforts to the military not the us Grendel forum members" is rather presumptuous and rude. It is his forum, after all. If his "pushing" 6.5 Grendel for military use bugs you, I'd suggest that you just ignore those posts.

That's just not true, Joe. Right after WWI, Garand was hired on at Springfield Armory to develop a semi-auto rifle specifically to fire the standard .30 caliber round.

A few years later Pedersen convinced some in the Army that it wasn't feasible to make a .30 cal selfloader, and that his .276 Pedersen cartridge should be used instead. It was only at that point in time that Garand was directed to switch his rifle development effort to the smaller caliber, with Pedersen also being contracted to develop a rifle of his own design.

If not for Pedersen's intervention in pushing the lower-powered 7mm cartridge, there is no reason to think that the Army would've strayed from its quest for a .30 caliber semi-auto rifle.

Your statement that John "should present such efforts to the military not the us Grendel forum members" is rather presumptuous and rude. It is his forum, after all. If his "pushing" 6.5 Grendel for military use bugs you, I'd suggest that you just ignore those posts.

You're just bias Stan, that's all to it. I have not called John any names, and before you jump on that saying you never said that I know you didn't, and if you don't like my post put me on ignore.

The Army did decide to change no matter how it came about. The whole thing is totally irrelevant to the situation here. The military is very aware of the 6.5 Grendel.....
and they aren't interested in it. Sorry if that upsets you all.

Joe

Besides the .276, the US Army also experimented with a .256 caliber (6.5mm) cartridge in the Danish Bang semi-auto rifle. While the Bang rifle was a dead end, the .256 was considered to be quite effective.

Quoting from the 1928 "Pig Board" trials document reprinted in Hatcher's Book of the Garand (p. 81):
At 300 yards, the caliber .256, 125 grain flat base bullet gave by far the most severe wounds in all parts of the animal. All calibers caused very severe trauma, but the .256 seemed to be in a class by itself. Next to the caliber .256, the caliber .276 flat base bullet must be considered as occupying second place.

(FWIW: The .256 cartridge specs were 125gr at 2,650fps.)

You can find drawings and specifications of the different .256 experimental cartridges in History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition: Vol. I (pp. 267-269).

You're just bias Stan, that's all to it. I have not called John any names, and before you jump on that saying you never said that I know you didn't, and if you don't like my post put me on ignore.
Wow! Joe, I can't possibly reply to that. You have me totally at a loss for words. :confused: :o :cool: :( :eek: :p :D

Besides the .276, the US Army also experimented with a .256 caliber (6.5mm) cartridge in the Danish Bang semi-auto rifle. While the Bang rifle was a dead end, the .256 was considered to be quite effective.

Quoting from the 1928 "Pig Board" trials document reprinted in Hatcher's Book of the Garand (p. 81):
At 300 yards, the caliber .256, 125 grain flat base bullet gave by far the most severe wounds in all parts of the animal. All calibers caused very severe trauma, but the .256 seemed to be in a class by itself. Next to the caliber .256, the caliber .276 flat base bullet must be considered as occupying second place.
I've seen that before, but never heard of why the .256 reportedly did so much better. Different construction and/or configuration, maybe?

Also, didn't it go on to say that .30 caliber outperformed the .256 and .276 at longer distances?
(FWIW: The .256 cartridge specs were 125gr at 2,650fps.)
Pretty close to 6.5 Grendel. :cool:
You can find drawings and specifications of the different .256 experimental cartridges in History of Modern US Military Small Arms Ammunition: Vol. I (pp. 267-269).
I read that book some years ago, but paid little attention to the .256 info. I do recall the .276 Pedersen chapter noting armor penetration of that round was markedly inferior to that of .30 cal.

Wow! Joe, I can't possibly reply to that. You have me totally at a loss for words. :confused: :o :cool: :( :eek: :p :D


Stan, tell me it can't be. You a loss for words? Damn, maybe that thing about the end of the world in 2012 is right. :D

Joe

Stan, tell me it can't be. You a loss for words?
Mindboggling, ain't it? ;) :D

Mindboggling, ain't it? ;) :D

Aaaaah good, I feel better now Stan. I knew it couldn't be true.
:)

Joe

Hasn't full-auto rifle fire been pretty much abandoned by the US military? For the average soldier, hitting a man with a full-auto burst seems to be a very short range proposition. Some years ago there was a magazine article (in Machine Gun News, IIRC) in which the author told of firing 3-rd bursts with an M16. Even with the low-recoil, 5.56 cartridge, only the first round hit the target. Each time he tried it, the other two rounds went high and right, completely missing, despite the short distance.

I suppose we could ask Variable how 6.5 Grendel fares in this regard, but with as much F-A shooting as he does, it probably wouldn't tell us much about how well the "average recruit" could do with a 6.5 G carbine.

FA in a medium to longer range is for augmentation of the Machine Gunner.

That way when belt changes(theoretically should not happen but does) or stoppages occur there is not a reduction in suppressive firepower.

Or at least that is what I taught/ was taught and believe

BTW if you don't want to carry the pig don't let anyone see the size of your arms. ;)

Of course I could not dodge that one. :o

FA in a medium to longer range is for augmentation of the Machine Gunner.

That way when belt changes or stoppages occur there is not a reduction in suppressive firepower.

Or at least that is what I taught/ was taught and believe

It's only useful in room clearing or scenarios like that. An anecdote: I ran an M-16 qualification range once. A lot fewer guys showed up to qualify than we had ammo for. The cases were already open so the ammo dump didn't want the ammo back. So we had 3,000 or so rounds we had to burn up. We had 20 lanes with pop up targets from 75 meters to 300 meters at roughly 50 meter intervals, or about 150 targets total, if I remember correctly. We had about 18 guys shooting up the ammo. They begged me to let them shoot auto, so I said what the hell, it was getting late. The medic, the jeep drivers, the truck drivers, the range NCO's were all getting in on the fun. We popped up all the targets and cut loose. Guys fired magazines from the shoulder, from the hip, long bursts, short bursts. After firing over 3,000 rounds we had hit 12 or 15 of the targets. It was about 1 target hit per 200 rounds fired. At more than 25 meters, auto fire is useless and uses beaucoup ammo. Even at 25 meters your best best for a snap shot is to am low and to the left (for right handers). If guys had fired the first shot aimed, rather than pointing and shooting, we would have hit many more targets. Trying to walk rounds onto a target in full auto at more than 25 meters is much harder than you would think. Even with a belt fed machine gun it is tough without the tripod.

I've seen that before, but never heard of why the .256 reportedly did so much better. Different construction and/or configuration, maybe?

Also, didn't it go on to say that .30 caliber outperformed the .256 and .276 at longer distances?

It was a toss up at 600yds, with the .256 given a slight edge. The .30'06 took the lead at 1,000yds.

Pretty close to 6.5 Grendel. :cool:

The .256 "Experimental A" case was kind of close to the Grendel case in dimensions, except for the rim and Lebel-style double taper.

Case dimensions are as follows:

Rim: .509"
Head: .439"
Neck: .293"
Length: 1.600"

Death to spammers!