U.S. Army explores continuing carbine upgrades

[Texas]

7.62 NATO is the problem with our system, not 5.56, especially with M855A1 in the system now. The new M80A1 7.62 NATO has an even lower BC than the M80 7.62 FMJBT projectile.

Has the barrel erosion and bolt breakage problem been solved with the M855A1? The original M855A1 cut barrel life about in half on M4s and the increased pressure necessary to get the velocity needed for projectile performance was causing problems with bolts. Also as I recall, the government lost a patent infringement case on the projectile running costs up to about 8.5 cents per projectile which is significant compared to the M855 or M193.

The complaints I was hearing about the 5.56 were due to over penetration.

[Lightning8]

6.5mm LSAT exceeds the capabilities of the M240 and PKM, at half the weight or less, with constant recoil and the ability to carry much more ammo in smaller volume.

7.62 NATO is the problem with our system, not 5.56, especially with M855A1 in the system now. The new M80A1 7.62 NATO has an even lower BC than the M80 7.62 FMJBT projectile.

I was referring to the SAW - I do not think the 6.5mm LSAT will be used in the SAW. I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

[biodsl]

I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

Phased, in the 40 watt range preferably.

[LRRPF52]

I was referring to the SAW - I do not think the 6.5mm LSAT will be used in the SAW. I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

LSAT isn't caseless, it's polymer cased with the projectile inside.

It's a SAW-killer in that it is more reliable, much lighter, constant recoil, handles more like an assault rifle, and doesn't suffer from the brass-cased cartridge issues that M855A1 causes, when using the M855A1 projectile.

[n9nwo]

I know there is a lot of discontent around the 5.56X45 in the military, and there is about $2 billion budgeted for the upgrade of the M16/M4 system. The 6.5X39 would be welcome by a number of well respected military leaders. I have had the opportunity to discuss this with Army and Marine Corp personnel. The M249 can be configured to fire the 6.5X39 which could illiminate the need for an M240 and the 7.62X51 cartridge and provide for a one caliber supply chain.

There are two nearly perfect calibers (in terms of BC), 6.5 and .338 (8.59). It has been suggested that if we moved to the 6.5x39 for the SAW and infantry rifle (and DMR) then we should upgrade the m240 to 8.6x63 (.338 NM) which would give the M240 nearly the impact of the .50 M2 but with less recoil and weight.

Similarly we need to merge the three cannon calibers (20mm, 25mm, 30mm) into the 25mm (1 inch) which also is nearly a perfect BC. A 25mm makes more sense than the M2 .50 anyway.

[n9nwo]

I was referring to the SAW - I do not think the 6.5mm LSAT will be used in the SAW. I hope we can get an effective new service cartridge but my bet is on the plasma rifle before caseless.

The problem with any technology is that once it is perfected then it is quickly replaced with a new technology.