US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • BluntForceTrauma
    Administrator
    • Feb 2011
    • 3897

    #91
    My point is I'm perfectly willing to grant M855A1 is a "better" bullet, but at what price per unit compared to an analog with a lead core instead of copper under the steel tip.

    My argument is simple to address. DOD analysts can say: 1) Sure, it costs more, but this is 'merica and we can afford it, so we don't care. Or, 2) copper is not a strategic resource that we need to conserve in a very large war. Or, 3) using lead in the core is orders of magnitude less "effective" than the same in copper.

    Those are what I consider valid "technical" reasons, not politically driven fake reasons — as Trump would say .
    :: 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

    • JASmith
      Chieftain
      • Sep 2014
      • 1620

      #92
      Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
      Stan:

      Makes sense to me. We got a better bullet out of it so how come everyone is complaining?

      LR55
      One advantage is that reasonably posed complaints lead to balanced debate that we all learn from.

      We all bristle when "feel good" legislation forces us to abandon long standing methods and materials. Nonetheless, the occasional silver lining pops up.

      For example, I submit that while, several thousand years of use from plumbing to wine storage have shown that lead toxicity is not particularly serious, there is enough for legislators to use that as a ploy to ban lead in hunting ammunition. The result is that the then nascent lead-free bullet making community blossomed with a large variety of hunting bullets, almost all of which are superior game harvesters on a weight for weight basis than lead core bullets.

      Yes, to my knowledge so far, none of the lead-free alternatives are less expensive than a Cor-Lokt, Power Point, or any of the other modest priced lead core hunting bullets. Some of them, however, are less expensive than their equivalent premium lead core hunting bullets.

      So, while I completely concur with BFT's annoyance with the apparent mandate to avoid lead, there are advantages.

      Further, several of the cross section photos of Russian bullets, in particular, show small amounts of lead used as a filler. There is a cost-savings to be gained from using a soft material to fill the space between a steel core and a soft iron or copper jacket.

      Thus lead continues to have a place in military applications independent of civilian constraints.
      Last edited by JASmith; 04-29-2017, 02:59 PM.
      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

        #93
        Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
        My point is I'm perfectly willing to grant M855A1 is a "better" bullet, but at what price per unit compared to an analog with a lead core instead of copper under the steel tip.
        For a close approximation:

        copper @ $2.50 / lb
        lead @ $1.00 / lb
        M855A1 slug @ 30 gr

        Price difference per bullet:

        Comment

        • stanc
          Banned
          • Apr 2011
          • 3430

          #94
          Originally posted by JASmith View Post
          ...several of the cross section photos of Russian bullets, in particular, show small amounts of lead used as a filler. There is a cost-savings to be gained from using a soft material to fill the space between a steel core and a soft iron or copper jacket.

          Thus lead continues to have a place in military applications independent of civilian constraints.
          The Russian and Chinese bullets are 1940s technology. Lead is not needed in modern steel-core bullet designs like the Swedish 5.56mm.

          Last edited by stanc; 04-29-2017, 04:42 PM.

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            #95
            Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
            My argument is simple to address. DOD analysts can say:

            1) Sure, it costs more, but this is 'merica and we can afford it, so we don't care.
            Uh, that is exactly what they did say.

            Or, 2) copper is not a strategic resource that we need to conserve in a very large war.
            The US doesn't do large wars anymore. We only attack small countries that we think can't hurt us.

            Or, 3) using lead in the core is orders of magnitude less "effective" than the same in copper.
            Heh, heh. No practical core material is going to be "orders of magnitude" less effective than any other.

            Those are what I consider valid "technical" reasons...
            Since reason #1 has been answered, does that mean you'll stop objecting to EPR bullets? You may as well accept it and plan for it, because neither you nor anyone else here has the power to change it.

            I realize that you want the Army to go back to using lead-core bullets so that a 123gr bullet for 6.5 Grendel will be feasible, but that ain't likely to happen. Besides, didn't even Bill Alexander say that 100-110 grains is the optimum weight range for a 6.5 Grendel military bullet?

            Comment

            • montana
              Chieftain
              • Jun 2011
              • 3209

              #96
              Originally posted by stanc View Post
              For a close approximation:

              copper @ $2.50 / lb
              lead @ $1.00 / lb
              M855A1 slug @ 30 gr

              Price difference per bullet:
              Do you have the actual cost per bullet? It looks like an expensive bullet to make but I could be wrong. I have never seen any actual costs for comparison. If memory serves me correctly, we don't even have any lead mines open in the US anymore and must depend upon imports.

              Comment

              • stanc
                Banned
                • Apr 2011
                • 3430

                #97
                Originally posted by montana View Post
                Do you have the actual cost per bullet? It looks like an expensive bullet to make but I could be wrong.
                I have not seen any actual cost data. Only thing I found in a brief search is wiki says M855A1 is 5 cents more than M855.

                Comment

                • BluntForceTrauma
                  Administrator
                  • Feb 2011
                  • 3897

                  #98
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  The US doesn't do large wars anymore.
                  Sometimes large wars do us.

                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  Since reason #1 has been answered, does that mean you'll stop objecting to EPR bullets?
                  I object only to politically correct decision drivers, like those mandating women in front-line combat.

                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  I realize that you want the Army to go back to using lead-core bullets so that a 123gr bullet for 6.5 Grendel will be feasible
                  Nice try.
                  :: 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

                    #99
                    Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                    Sometimes large wars do us.
                    True. LBJ thought the North Vietnamese would be easy. That error in judgment turned into a bigger and longer war than he expected. It's always possible that DJT or a future POTUS could make a similar mistake.

                    In any case, to more directly address your question, apparently the DoD considers the use of copper in place of lead as a viable option. The SOST bullet used by the USMC in the Mk318 load has as much, if not more, copper than the M855A1 EPR.




                    I object only to politically correct decision drivers, like those mandating women in front-line combat.
                    Not sure if that's a yes or no?


                    Nice try.
                    Don't know what you mean. The subject of a 123gr EPR probably not being a feasible 6.5 Grendel load is what prompted your "editorializing" on the matter.

                    Comment

                    • JASmith
                      Chieftain
                      • Sep 2014
                      • 1620

                      Originally posted by stanc View Post
                      Don't know what you mean. The subject of a 123gr EPR probably not being a feasible 6.5 Grendel load is what prompted your "editorializing" on the matter.
                      Facts not in evidence
                      .
                      Or, are we resorting to. mind reading and other magic?

                      The baiting is becoming tedious.
                      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

                        Update

                        There's been a name change, but apparently no other action.
                        internal Army discussions continue about expanding the basis of issue of a 7.62 rifle, now referred to as the Interim Service Combat Rifle to all BCT members. However, there is still no formal requirement for the ISCR, and acquisition officials are leaning forward on the foxhole in anticipation, prepared to make this happen as quickly as possible.
                        Full article @ http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/03...-rifle-update/

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          Comment

                          • Smokehouse_83
                            Bloodstained
                            • Apr 2017
                            • 29

                            Seems like Grendel could be used in all 3 platforms and everybody could share ammo? 14" barrel with 80-100 grain ammo, 20" barrel scoped with 120-130 grain ammo, and a saw type platform. Really no need for a heavy machine gun. Maybe a dude with a bolt .50 for vehicles and bunkers.

                            Comment

                            • VASCAR2
                              Chieftain
                              • Mar 2011
                              • 6219

                              If big Army moves away from the 5.56X45 I think it will likely be with telescopic cased (TC or CT round requiring completely new rifle) or Polymer cased ammo and more traditional rifle. It'll be interesting to see if they actually settle on 6, 6.5 or 7 MM. If they go 6.5 MM I wouldn't be surprised if they don't adopt a bullet close to 107-108 grains with a M-855A1 style bullet. In any event I don't think the 6.5 Grendel as we know it today will be adopted by the US military. If the military goes for the 264 USA cartridge I'd be surprised if it uses a conventional brass case unless it for a DMR role and only a temporary solution.

                              Comment

                              • Essayons
                                Unwashed
                                • Oct 2015
                                • 22

                                Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in “intermediate calibers,” which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.

                                The weapon designs being tested will be “unconventional,” officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available..
                                Sounds like the Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) LMG and Carbine, maybe?
                                Last edited by Essayons; 05-12-2017, 10:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X