Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2101112
Results 221 to 237 of 237

Thread: New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers

  1. #221
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
    I don't envision a .338 as a dismounted weapon because of ammo weight, only a vehicle-mounted replacement for M2 with more ammo capacity.
    Okay, but other people are advocating it for dismounted use, as is the manufacturer:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc
    The "stretched" 6.5mms being experimented with are mostly, in my opinion, simply exercises in N.I.H. syndrome. Ego and emotion, again. There's no fame, glory, careers, or development dollars in going with something off-the-shelf.
    Gee, and I thought I was cynical.
    Paul makes very strong arguments for keeping 5.56, but I look at it as a judgment call. We survived WWII and Korea with much more limited personal ammo capacity, and our resupply now is at least as good as it was then. ... There is a balance to be struck between carry quantity of ammo and capability, and that balance is a judgment call open for interpretation.
    Of course it is. And I'm certain that the logistics of a one-caliber system could be managed. I just think that, all things considered, a two-caliber system is probably a better way to go. Just how much better, I'm not sure, and I'd really prefer a cartridge more like the 5.45x39 than the 5.56x45.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  2. #222
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
    Oh, yes, it also struck me that Schatz reported that the 6.5mm test projectiles had the SAME LETHALITY as legacy 7.62 NATO. I'd like to see the testing upon which that statement is based.
    As would I.
    Much to my annoyance, for the past decade we've heard from "authoritative" gel testers that for some magical reason the 6.5 caliber can't possibly be as lethal as, for example, the 6.8 caliber, with a caliber a full thirteen-thousandths of an inch larger.
    I don't recall seeing any claims that 6.5mm can't be as lethal as 6.8mm. But, I do remember Gary Roberts saying that the 6.5 Grendel load which was tested, proved significantly inferior to 6.8 SPC. However, that's hardly surprising, since the 6.8mm bullets were designed specifically for the SPC round and optimized for terminal effects, whereas the 120gr 6.5mm MatchKing used in the tests was not developed for either wounding effects or the Grendel cartridge.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  3. #223
    Chieftain Variable's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NRA/GOA/SAF Life.... West Virginia
    Posts
    2,399
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    Just how much better, I'm not sure, and I'd really prefer a cartridge more like the 5.45x39 than the 5.56x45.
    There I was, tooling along in this thread nicely.... When all of a sudden you hit me with a plate glass door.LOL



    5.45???
    Last edited by Variable; 06-15-2015 at 01:59 AM.
    Life member NRA, SAF, GOA, WVSRPA (and VFW). Also member WVCDL. Join NOW!!!!!
    We either hang together on this, or we'll certainly HANG separately.....

  4. #224
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by Variable View Post
    There I was, tooling along in this thread nicely.... When all of a sudden you hit me with a plate glass door.LOL

    5.45???
    Heh, heh. Yeah, why not? After all, it's very similar in concept to 6.5 Grendel -- a long, streamlined bullet, in a short, relatively fat cartridge case.

    Straighten the case taper a bit to increase powder capacity, and maybe increase caliber to 6mm. No?
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  5. #225
    Chieftain cory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    2,915
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    Okay, but other people are advocating it for dismounted use, as is the manufacturer:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc
    Yes we are advocating dismounted use. However, we're aware that implementing a .338 MMG and a 6.5 LMG will change tactics for employing machine guns.

    Currently we have a 5.56 SAW as the LMG and the 240G as the MMG. There isn't much comparison in the two. In situations where you need the 240G, the SAW is useless. So we have other troops devoted to deploying a 2nd 240G.

    A 6.5 LMG would compliment a .338 MMG, and would demand that they be deployed on the battlefield in such a manner. The LMGs could and should be used as the brunt force, allowing the MMG to engage the critical and hard to reach targets. Therefore, if we make the switch to a 6.5 LMG and a .338 MMG, we don't as many MMGs on the battlefield. This would allow more troops to be devoted to a single MMG, allowing more ammunition to be carried.
    "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

  6. #226
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,220
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    As would I.

    I don't recall seeing any claims that 6.5mm can't be as lethal as 6.8mm. But, I do remember Gary Roberts saying that the 6.5 Grendel load which was tested, proved significantly inferior to 6.8 SPC. However, that's hardly surprising, since the 6.8mm bullets were designed specifically for the SPC round and optimized for terminal effects, whereas the 120gr 6.5mm MatchKing used in the tests was not developed for either wounding effects or the Grendel cartridge.
    It's because they were comparing a .277" varmint bullet with SMK's in all the other bore diameters. They were laughed out of professional circles every chance they got with the way they ran the marketing and testing for 6.8. It was like a snowballing accumulation of every worst possible proponent jumping aboard, and kept getting worse. Dudes lost their jobs over it, were escorted off of Fort Bragg, non contract losers with ancillary systems were jumping on the wagon to try to circumvent the earlier decisions using the 6.8 as a new avenue of approach to contracts, etc.

    "But one of these kids is doin' his own thing, now it's time to play our game..."



    .277" is a dead-end, and was a really bad choice with that cartridge. The methodology used to conclude its terminal performance superiority was so blatantly fraudulent, that people could hardly believe proponents were that stupid to put forth such a claim on its face. The backstory to 6.8 is so filled with these kinds of full retard approaches, it boggles your mind really.
    Last edited by LRRPF52; 08-10-2017 at 09:26 PM.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  7. #227
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,220
    If you go CT with a .338 MG, like a big LSAT, that would bring the weapon and ammo weight and length down significantly.

    The DTIC power point seems to favor training and an intermediate 6.5mm cartridge/weapon system for Snipers and DM's, as well as LMG's. Notice how we're not really talking about the future of 7.62 NATO as a given though.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  8. #228
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    837
    The problem with the SPC case length is that there is not enough room for a decent ogive within the AR15 magazine length.

    Shortening the case moves the optimal caliber in the direction of 6mm or .25 so the velocity can be kept at OK levels.
    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

  9. #229
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by JASmith View Post
    The problem with the SPC case length is that there is not enough room for a decent ogive within the AR15 magazine length.

    Shortening the case moves the optimal caliber in the direction of 6mm or .25 so the velocity can be kept at OK levels.
    Don't shorten the case. Lengthen the receiver. Historically, whenever a new cartridge has been adopted, new weapons have been developed specifically for it. Which means the AR15/M16/M4 magazine length is probably irrelevant for military use.

    Then load a long-ogive bullet in the case. Like below (except with lead-free construction, which would make the bullet substantially lighter than 135 grains).

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

  10. #230
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,220
    And now you push into a heavier weapon, with longer bolt travel requirements, with less available space on my kit for mags, in order to reach 6mm-6.5mm BC's that can be used already within the existing system dimensions of the AR15 family. Like I said, going with .277" was a really bad idea from the start, and the reasoning behind it was patently fraudulent. Trying to pass off a varmint bullet as OTM to career ballistics engineers was one of the first major mistakes. It's a dead end. If people knew the back story, they would laugh.

    A 6mm SPC or 6.35mm SPC would have been much better. 6.5mm run at lower pressures gives you the ability to get longer barrel life, whereas 6mm's are renowned for poor barrel life. That has significant implications for training and logistics, which I have personally seen manifest especially in the sniping community where we had to send our M24's off to be re-barreled by Remington at a certain round count.

    With the .300 Win Mag in the Sniping Community, it has serious throat and bore wear considerations that severely limit the ability to train with the gun, especially after the introduction of the newer load that tries to be a .338 LM. Pressure on it would make Roy Weatherby blush.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  11. #231
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    And now you push into a heavier weapon, with longer bolt travel requirements, with less available space on my kit for mags, in order to reach 6mm-6.5mm BC's that can be used already within the existing system dimensions of the AR15 family.
    Hey, I just said it was an option. I didn't say it was the best option.

    But, if the military should decide to adopt a new conventional cartridge, I think it'll likely have a longer COAL than 5.56 NATO (for example, .264 USA, 6.5x43 Lapua), making the issues you raise above inevitable.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  12. #232
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    SMALL ARMS AND AMMUNITION WHERE ARE WE HEADING? http://quarryhs.co.uk/ArticleDCMS2017.pdf
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  13. #233
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,220
    I would say that's a fairly decent synopsis, other than the obvious fact that we've always had a healthy mix of 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO.

    Not only has that been true in the US Army and Marines, but the UK, Australia, New Zealand, German, and other NATO partner nations.

    That's one of the main things that has always stuck out to me about these discussions: The total misunderstanding that M16s/M4s are central to the Platoon and Squad small arms mix as a function of combat power. The individual rifleman is the final piece of the echelons of fire and maneuver who puts his boot on the face of the carcass in the rubble left over from the fusillade of CAS, artillery, mortars, rockets/AT weapons, machine guns, and grenade launchers.

    Even at the Squad Level, the M4 is not the dominant system for firepower. The SAW is. If you have DMs like you should, then the SAWs and DMs are the most casualty-producing duty positions when trained properly.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  14. #234
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    73
    I agree with Cory and LR. While small arms are effective at incapacitation, they do not win battles or wars in traditional warfare with tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, and aircraft. When you have small unit troops in contact, they need to have enough ammo to sustain until reinforced, resupplied, or until the above are used - unless of course it was a small group of civilian, armed combatants where usually they disappear quickly after they take fire or one of them is killed.

    When you are the guy patrolling you want something that is light and effective to the range that you can see what is shooting at you which is usually less than 300 yards but in most circumstances doesn't reach 800-1000. At those longer ranges, MMGs, the 50BMG, and Mark19s allow you return fire and mount up and/ or maneuver.

    5.56 is generally effective and you can carry ~200 rounds in a normal combat load with armor and a day or two day pack and can still move quickly. The grendel is definitely superior/ more effective than 5.56 in what I have seen, all aspects, but does have a slight trade off of weight, size, and carrying capacity, however it is still very close to the current combat load. I can only imagine how much more effective a 6.5 grendel green tip with a tungsten penetrator twice the size of M855 would be.

    That being said i am not sure if they went with the grendel what grain projectile they would use, maybe a 100-110gr to keep velocity high? Or like Stanc was saying, perhaps slightly elongate the case to use a 120-130 gr projectile with a bit more powder and slightly widen and lengthen the receiver to accommodate the change. It might even be possible to keep the same exterior receiver dimensions and remove some of the inner receiver material (with some other adjustments) to make up for the small difference in size. Either way people that have much more knowledge, experience, and funding will be (have done/ are) doing tons of research and development.

    Also, a 338 MMG does make sense because if you have ever seen 240 MMGs shoot past 800 or just look at their ballistic tables, their trajectory and energy fall off quickly. While the 338 would have similar ballistics to a 50BMG with the ability to have differing projectile types. However, I really do not see the 50BMG going anywhere. It always was an anti material cartridge even though it certainly can be used for anti personal purposes.

  15. #235
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,316
    Quote Originally Posted by dega37 View Post
    That being said i am not sure if they went with the grendel what grain projectile they would use, maybe a 100-110gr to keep velocity high?
    If 6.5 Grendel were to be adopted, it seems likely that bullet weight would be in that range, or perhaps even a bit lighter.

    That's because with a lead-free projectile of the EPR type, bullets heavier than 110 grains would extend rather deep into the case, using up propellant space.

    For example, note how long is the base of the 123-grain EPR bullet in CT ammo.

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

  16. #236
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Cracker Trail
    Posts
    425
    So ..you fix that by using a more energetic powder.

  17. #237
    Drift
    So ..you fix that by using a more energetic powder.
    Doesn't that raise pressures which puts you back in the "need a new, heavier receiver" side of the equation?

Posting Permissions

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