+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 67 of 67
  1. #61
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote 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.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  2. #62
    Marksmanship Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,570
    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

  3. #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 :: Make ARs Great Again ::

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

  4. #64
    Marksmanship Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote 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

  5. #65
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote 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.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  6. #66
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote 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.)

    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  7. #67
    Marksmanship Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,570
    Quote 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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts