CT Ammo Update

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • stanc
    Banned
    • Apr 2011
    • 3430

    CT Ammo Update

    As I expected, 6.5mm CT is as bulky and heavy as 7.62mm CT.





    6.5mm CT carbine needs more development. Current weight is as heavy as an M1 Garand, and it's two inches longer than an M4 carbine, despite having a barrel that's two inches shorter.





    7.62mm CT machine gun looks good. Weighs 14.7 pounds, and convertible to 6.5mm.











  • LRRPF52
    Super Moderator
    • Sep 2014
    • 8569

    #2
    200rds of 6.5mm CT will weigh what 100rds of linked 7.62 NATO M80 currently does, or less.

    That's a huge significance for logistics at the micro and macro levels.

    I'm only seeing positives, not negatives.
    Last edited by LRRPF52; 05-08-2016, 10:51 PM.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

    Comment

    • stanc
      Banned
      • Apr 2011
      • 3430

      #3
      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
      200rds of 6.5mm CT will weigh what 100rds of linked 7.62 NATO M80 currently does, or less.

      That's a huge significance for logistics at the micro and macro levels.

      I'm only seeing positives, not negatives.
      Well, you're exaggerating a bit, in that it's more like 160 rds of linked 6.5 CT vs 100 rds of linked 7.62 NATO, but yeah, for the 6.5 CT machine gun, it looks to be all good.

      For the 6.5 CT carbine, not so much. Much heavier and a bit longer than the M4, with 20-rd magazines that are fatter than, and just as tall as, 30-rd 5.56 magazines.

      Comment

      • VASCAR2
        Chieftain
        • Mar 2011
        • 6219

        #4
        I'm curious if the CT 6.5 could be put into a Bullpup, it might make an ambidextrous Bullpup to heavy. Neat stuff thanks for posting Stan.

        Comment

        • LRRPF52
          Super Moderator
          • Sep 2014
          • 8569

          #5
          Originally posted by stanc View Post
          Well, you're exaggerating a bit, in that it's more like 160 rds of linked 6.5 CT vs 100 rds of linked 7.62 NATO, but yeah, for the 6.5 CT machine gun, it looks to be all good.

          For the 6.5 CT carbine, not so much. Much heavier and a bit longer than the M4, with 20-rd magazines that are fatter than, and just as tall as, 30-rd 5.56 magazines.
          No, I didn't exaggerate. If you look closely in the charts, they are talking about a different 7.62 NATO load with a 130gr projectile, which weighs less than M80 147gr, which is what I'm used to carrying.

          I have no interest in the carbine at this stage. The LMG is where it is at for CT.

          100rds of 7.62 M80 linked is 7lbs. You tend to remember these things when you've been a Gunner, Assistant Gunner, or Ammo Bearer. When you're the AG and AB in one man, you really remember them. Wish I had pictures, but it's funny how you never see pictures from guys in Weapons Squad with rucks on.
          NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

          CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

          6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

          www.AR15buildbox.com

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            #6
            Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
            No, I didn't exaggerate. If you look closely in the charts, they are talking about a different 7.62 NATO load with a 130gr projectile, which weighs less than M80 147gr, which is what I'm used to carrying.

            100rds of 7.62 M80 linked is 7lbs. You tend to remember these things when you've been a Gunner, Assistant Gunner, or Ammo Bearer. When you're the AG and AB in one man, you really remember them.
            My mistake. I didn't read your post carefully enough. However, a weight comparison with 147gr M80 doesn't seem particularly relevant when the new standard is 130gr M80A1.

            I have no interest in the carbine at this stage. The LMG is where it is at for CT.
            The Army has interest in the carbine. That's what counts.

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              #7
              Originally posted by VASCAR2 View Post
              I'm curious if the CT 6.5 could be put into a Bullpup...
              Just offhand, I don't know of anything that would prevent a CT bullpup, but I can't say for sure.

              Comment

              • SHORT-N-SASSY
                Warrior
                • Apr 2013
                • 629

                #8
                Originally posted by VASCAR2 View Post
                I'm curious if the CT 6.5 could be put into a Bullpup, it might make an ambidextrous Bullpup to heavy. Neat stuff thanks for posting Stan.
                Actually, Canada is working on a Bullpup rifle using Cased Telescoped (CT) technology:

                Looking every bit like a weapon from a science fiction movie, the latest integrated assault rifle prototype being developed for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) is packed with some very smart weapons technology. Along with the ability to fire new lightweight telescoped ammunition, and a secondary…



                Comment

                • stanc
                  Banned
                  • Apr 2011
                  • 3430

                  #9
                  Interesting. Looks like it has an integral suppressor. And mag-fed (semi-auto?) grenade launcher.

                  Also looks even more ungainly than the US XM26 OICW.





                  I wonder if they've started work on a 6.5mm version, yet?
                  Last edited by stanc; 05-10-2016, 01:26 AM.

                  Comment

                  • SHORT-N-SASSY
                    Warrior
                    • Apr 2013
                    • 629

                    #10
                    "Maybe a new Canadian Smart Gun chambered for 6.5mm?"

                    (http://www.casr.ca/bg-future-small-arms-research.htm)

                    Comment

                    • JASmith
                      Chieftain
                      • Sep 2014
                      • 1620

                      #11
                      Nathaniel Fitch posted an interesting discussion about the CT initiative in The Firearm Blog: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

                      His sentiments about the path being taken -- sacrificing mobility for long range effectiveness in every rifle -- should resonate with those who have actually had to hump rifles and ammunition into combat.
                      shootersnotes.com

                      "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
                      -- Author Unknown

                      "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

                      Comment

                      • stanc
                        Banned
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 3430

                        #12




                        The weight of the 6.5 CT carbine has been cut. It's no longer as heavy as an M1 Garand. It's now as light as an M14 rifle.

                        Still has the same 20-rd mag capacity of the M14, though.

                        Muzzle velocity is MUCH higher than I think anyone here would have imagined. What are felt recoil and full-auto controllability going to be with 123gr @ 3000 fps???

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          #13
                          Photo of 6.5 EPR round (via Tony Williams).

                          Here you are, guys - a photo taken at AUSA has been sent to me. Obviously, Textron (or someone) have developed a 6.5mm version of the EPR. Any guesses as to weight and BC?


                          Looks like a very conservative, tangent ogive.

                          Comment

                          • BluntForceTrauma
                            Administrator
                            • Feb 2011
                            • 3897

                            #14
                            Good find, Stan, although I see no reason they couldn't streamline the nose.
                            :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

                            :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              #15
                              Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                              Good find, Stan, although I see no reason they couldn't streamline the nose.
                              John, as shown in the OP, it looks like development did start with a very streamlined bullet (123gr MatchKing, or similar).

                              I'd guess that such a long ogive design proved problematical in some manner. I don't know why it was done, but I've seen speculation that:

                              - Perhaps the long jump to the rifling cause accuracy issues with a long-ogive projectile.
                              - The shorter ogive enabled better bullet stability in the transonic region.
                              - A weight of 123 grains was desired, which could not be achieved with a long-ogive, lead-free bullet while keeping length below 5.5 calibers.
                              - The ogive was chosen for optimum compatibility with a Tracer bullet.
                              Last edited by stanc; 10-16-2016, 07:41 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X