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

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

    #61
    Originally posted by stanc View Post
    It appears that you misunderstood me. I was not advocating a return to 7.62 rifles.

    I was only noting that PEO Soldier (and other organizations and individuals) want 800-meter engagement capability for all soldiers.

    Actually, I agree with your position on the matter.
    P.S. There is one issue that seems like it could warrant fielding of an interim 7.62 battle rifle: Defeat of modern hard body armor.

    Some people foresee going up against an opponent which equips its soldiers with hard armor comparable to that worn by US troops.

    7.62 AP is significantly better at penetrating hard armor than 5.56 AP.

    Comment

    • LR1955
      Super Moderator
      • Mar 2011
      • 3355

      #62
      Stan / Guys:

      Problems with '800 meter capability' for the average soldier.

      1. Not many places in the world where a person can see 800 meters and have a clear field of fire to that target (nothing in the trajectory to deflect the round).

      2. Must have a magnified optic to identify and engage man size targets at those distances unless the man size target is a E-Sil pasted to a white 6 foot target frame on a KD range.

      3. The soldier must have some means of knowing the effectiveness of his fire at that distance such as tracer or a spotter. Even with tracer it is extremely difficult to determine if your fire is near the target. Spotter is out of the question.

      4. At 800 meters, with the service ball of today, the Soldier must be able to dope winds.

      5. Given service ball and weapons are three minute shooters at best, and add in human error and environmental conditions, we are talking about beaten zones for effectiveness. And semi auto weapons are not good at developing beaten zones. Thus the use of belt fed automatic weapons fired from stable platforms.

      I am sure someone will try a bunch of 'fixes' for a problem that doesn't exist and honestly am interested in what they come up with!

      LR55

      Comment

      • BluntForceTrauma
        Administrator
        • Feb 2011
        • 3897

        #63
        LR, solid argument.

        What this says to me is that IF a military was to institute a cartridge other than 5.56, THEN it doesn't necessarily need to be more than something like 6.5 Grendel. For example, it wouldn't need to be the .264 USA with an OAL of 2.60. In the "real world," grunts can rarely use its extra range relative to its extra weight and bulk.

        Whether or not a military should adopt the 65G is a separate question, but what your analysis says to me is that they should NOT adopt something like a 264USA for the standard carbine.

        Devil's Advocate question: Does your analysis also argue against the necessity of 7.62 NATO in a medium machine gun? Side-by-side, what does a 762N MMG in a mount do in a beaten zone at 800m, for example, that a theoretical 65G LMG in the same mount at the same range with a 123gr VLD FMJ doesn't do? (Here I am assuming very similar external ballistics to M80.)
        :: 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

        • LR1955
          Super Moderator
          • Mar 2011
          • 3355

          #64
          Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
          LR, solid argument.

          What this says to me is that IF a military was to institute a cartridge other than 5.56, THEN it doesn't necessarily need to be more than something like 6.5 Grendel. For example, it wouldn't need to be the .264 USA with an OAL of 2.60. In the "real world," grunts can rarely use its extra range relative to its extra weight and bulk.

          Whether or not a military should adopt the 65G is a separate question, but what your analysis says to me is that they should NOT adopt something like a 264USA for the standard carbine.

          Devil's Advocate question: Does your analysis also argue against the necessity of 7.62 NATO in a medium machine gun? Side-by-side, what does a 762N MMG in a mount do in a beaten zone at 800m, for example, that a theoretical 65G LMG in the same mount at the same range with a 123gr VLD FMJ doesn't do? (Here I am assuming very similar external ballistics to M80.)
          John:

          I guess you could make a 'VLD' ogive for ball ammo. In fact, if you look at issued M-80, it is getting close. However, a true VLD comes with function and accuracy issues and most likely huge increases in cost of production. I would say that a LMG in 6.5 / 08 using simple 130 or 140 grain bullets would have a huge edge over issued M-80 ball. A 30 grain capacity cartridge would only equal M-80 and that is given a very specific bullet whose design would be monumentally expensive and may not be capable of the types of cores or tips that enhance terminal performance without reducing the exterior ballistic capability.

          If you want to say that a 30 grain capacity cartridge that is max loaded with a 123 grain Lapua match bullet equals or exceeds the exterior ballistic performance of a round of issued lead core M-80 ball, I would say that in most cases it would. Some lots of M-80 may surprise you, though. However, the terminal effects at long distances like 800 or 1000 meters may favor the M-80 over a match grade bullet simply due to the jacket thickness of the ball ammo.

          LR55

          Comment

          • stanc
            Banned
            • Apr 2011
            • 3430

            #65
            Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
            Stan / Guys:

            Problems with '800 meter capability' for the average soldier.

            <snip>
            Gene,

            I fully agree with your analysis. I've made similar points in past threads.

            The question is, are there factions in the Army who really are pushing for a 7.62 interim battle rifle? I've not yet seen substantiation for the story, although the statement by PEO Soldier about 800-meter capability does give some credence.

            Also, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the body armor question in post #61 above.

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              #66
              Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
              LR, solid argument.

              What this says to me is that IF a military was to institute a cartridge other than 5.56, THEN it doesn't necessarily need to be more than something like 6.5 Grendel. For example, it wouldn't need to be the .264 USA with an OAL of 2.60. In the "real world," grunts can rarely use its extra range relative to its extra weight and bulk.

              Whether or not a military should adopt the 65G is a separate question, but what your analysis says to me is that they should NOT adopt something like a 264USA for the standard carbine.
              I agree that something like 6.5 Grendel makes more sense as a carbine round than .264 USA, which is unnecessarily bulky, heavy, and powerful for the task.

              However, the .264 USA seems intended to not solely replace 5.56 NATO for carbines, but also to replace both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO for all shoulder weapons in the platoon.

              If a one-caliber system is desired, 6.5 Grendel seems a bit underpowered for the MMG role.

              Devil's Advocate question: Does your analysis also argue against the necessity of 7.62 NATO in a medium machine gun? Side-by-side, what does a 762N MMG in a mount do in a beaten zone at 800m, for example, that a theoretical 65G LMG in the same mount at the same range with a 123gr VLD FMJ doesn't do? (Here I am assuming very similar external ballistics to M80.)
              A few observations:

              1. Beaten zone is not the only performance criteria for machine guns.
              2. A VLD shape may not be a viable configuration for a military bullet.
              3. The lead-core FMJ is being superseded by the lead-free EPR design.

              An EPR projectile for 6.5 Grendel seems likely to be significantly lighter than 123 grains, which will affect trajectory, wind drift, effective range, beaten zone, and terminal effects to an unknown degree. (The 125gr EPR bullet developed for 6.5 CT ammo has a very long base, which would reduce powder capacity if loaded into the 6.5 Grendel case, adversely affecting muzzle velocity.)

              Comment

              • LR1955
                Super Moderator
                • Mar 2011
                • 3355

                #67
                Originally posted by stanc View Post
                Gene,

                I fully agree with your analysis. I've made similar points in past threads.

                The question is, are there factions in the Army who really are pushing for a 7.62 interim battle rifle? I've not yet seen substantiation for the story, although the statement by PEO Soldier about 800-meter capability does give some credence.

                Also, I'd appreciate your thoughts on the body armor question in post #61 above.
                Stan:

                Sure will. My view. I have never seen one round of 7.62 AP issued to any of the units I worked with between Y2K and about 2K12. Maybe they got some in country but no one ever mentioned it to me. Not even sure if the prototype 7.62 AP that was being worked somewhere around Y2K ever got developed. I don't think it did any better at beating its way through things as ball but maybe since then something has been produced and issued. Can't say as I ever heard of 5.56 AP. M-855 with the tungsten tip does a pretty good job of going through things.

                Body armor is monstrously expensive and I doubt many countries could outfit their guys with stuff as good as ours. If it isn't as good as ours, it can be defeated easier and may make the situation your mentioned (comparing a 7.62 AP to a 5.56 AP) mute.

                I really hesitate to get into terminal ballistics simply because of the variables involved.

                LR55

                Comment

                • BluntForceTrauma
                  Administrator
                  • Feb 2011
                  • 3897

                  #68
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  The lead-core FMJ is being superseded by the lead-free EPR design.
                  Just a side note to editorialize a bit: In a real shooting war with a real enemy — Iran, North Korea, China (God forbid) — with the grown-ups in charge for once, the ban on lead ammunition will take a back seat to actually devoting resources to winning the damn war, rather than appeasing politically-correct sensibilities.

                  Taking WWII as an example, these people have no idea what is involved in total war. With copper how many times the price of lead, protecting landfills will probably be low on the list of priorities. But if we'd rather "save the whales" than save the country, well, I guess that's a choice some people make. . . .
                  :: 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

                    #69
                    Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                    Just a side note to editorialize a bit: In a real shooting war with a real enemy — Iran, North Korea, China (God forbid) — with the grown-ups in charge for once, the ban on lead ammunition will take a back seat to actually devoting resources to winning the damn war, rather than appeasing politically-correct sensibilities.
                    Uh, John...those "real enemies" you cite have been using almost-lead-free bullets in standard ball ammo for decades.

                    7.62x39


                    7.62x54R


                    5.8x42


                    Taking WWII as an example, these people have no idea what is involved in total war.
                    Using WWII as an example also works against your position. Midway through that total war, the US switched from lead-core to almost-lead-free, steel-core bullets for .30-06 ammo.

                    .30 M2
                    Last edited by stanc; 04-28-2017, 12:27 AM.

                    Comment

                    • rickt300
                      Warrior
                      • Jan 2017
                      • 498

                      #70
                      As for the M4 and AR's in general I have to say mine have been extremely reliable! Easy to maintain and you can carry plenty of ammo, certainly effective some past 300 meters. The wind is what beats the 5.56 down in the long run and not being able to see where it is hitting way out there. The rather impressive pile of dead the 5.56 has accounted for says a great deal of it's useful abilities. I like the Grendel but ammo for it is heavier and I really would like to see bolt reliability upped so it could rival the 5.56. There is no question the Grendel is a more effective cartridge for hunting but I don't have to sweat the tensile strength of web gear when I'm out chasing hogs. I don't have to worry about pushing 4-500 rounds out on any given day either. I feel the way our military uses a layered approach with different weapons is the way to go and really don't see a need to replace the M4 until something revolutionary is developed.

                      Comment

                      • BluntForceTrauma
                        Administrator
                        • Feb 2011
                        • 3897

                        #71
                        Originally posted by stanc View Post
                        Using WWII as an example also works against your position. Midway through that total war, the US switched from lead-core to almost-lead-free, steel-core bullets for .30-06 ammo.
                        Stan, none of this works against my position.

                        I am fine with militaries using lead, steel, copper, or Gummi Bears in their bullets as long as they choose their bullet construction to meet military performance parameters.

                        I am fine with militaries substituting a material in their bullets to conserve strategic resources.

                        I am NOT fine with the construction and performance of military ammunition being trumped by the concerns of politically correct environmentalists.

                        Pretty sure the Russians don't use steel-core bullets because a tree-hugger got elected and mandated it.
                        :: 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

                          #72
                          Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                          Stan, none of this works against my position.

                          I am fine with militaries using lead, steel, copper, or Gummi Bears in their bullets as long as they choose their bullet construction to meet military performance parameters.
                          I am fine with militaries substituting a material in their bullets to conserve strategic resources.
                          I am NOT fine with the construction and performance of military ammunition being trumped by the concerns of politically correct environmentalists.
                          It hasn't been trumped. The lead-free M855A1 bullet has better lethality and penetration than the lead-core M855 it replaced.

                          Pretty sure the Russians don't use steel-core bullets because a tree-hugger got elected and mandated it.
                          No doubt. The point is, the use of steel-core bullets by the US and Germany when fighting the greatest war in history, and the post-WWII use of steel-core bullets by Russia, China, and many other countries, shows that bullets do not need to be of lead-core construction in order to get the desired ballistic performance and terminal effects.

                          Or are you just upset because the 123gr weight that you'd prefer for a 6.5 Grendel military bullet seems impractical with lead-free construction?

                          Comment

                          • JASmith
                            Chieftain
                            • Sep 2014
                            • 1620

                            #73
                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            It hasn't been trumped. The lead-free M855A1 bullet has better lethality and penetration than the lead-core M855 it replaced.


                            No doubt. The point is, the use of steel-core bullets by the US and Germany when fighting the greatest war in history, and the post-WWII use of steel-core bullets by Russia, China, and many other countries, shows that bullets do not need to be of lead-core construction in order to get the desired ballistic performance and terminal effects.

                            Or are you just upset because the 123gr weight that you'd prefer for a 6.5 Grendel military bullet seems impractical with lead-free construction?
                            I'm with BFT -- choose what works. Lead has its place. So do other materials.

                            Pushing these little gotchas further starts to smell more like baiting than a genuine exploration of ideas and knowledge.
                            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

                              #74
                              Originally posted by JASmith View Post
                              I'm with BFT -- choose what works. Lead has its place.
                              The EPR design works. Lead is not necessary.

                              Pushing these little gotchas further starts to smell more like baiting than a genuine exploration of ideas and knowledge.
                              It's not a "gotcha." It's a reasonable question.

                              Why get upset about having to use lead-free construction, when the lead-free (M855A1) projectile reportedly outperforms the lead-core (M855) bullet on all counts?
                              Last edited by stanc; 04-28-2017, 08:04 AM.

                              Comment

                              • LR1955
                                Super Moderator
                                • Mar 2011
                                • 3355

                                #75
                                Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                                Stan, none of this works against my position.

                                I am fine with militaries using lead, steel, copper, or Gummi Bears in their bullets as long as they choose their bullet construction to meet military performance parameters.

                                I am fine with militaries substituting a material in their bullets to conserve strategic resources.

                                I am NOT fine with the construction and performance of military ammunition being trumped by the concerns of politically correct environmentalists.

                                Pretty sure the Russians don't use steel-core bullets because a tree-hugger got elected and mandated it.
                                BFT:

                                Maybe the mil is using the environmentalists to justify the cost of what the mil believes are much more lethal bullets? I am pretty sure they cost a lot more than the old lead core bullets and maybe the mil figured that it would be easier to get funding if they used lead contamination as a reason for the new bullets.

                                I think the Russians went to soft steel cores because it was cheaper than lead. Or perhaps steel was easier to get than lead during WWII? Not sure but I doubt DoD would go to a less lethal bullet that costs a bunch more just to appease leftists in congress.

                                LR55

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X