New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Trooper
    Unwashed
    • Oct 2014
    • 21


    Article in this month’s Guns & Ammo. They are developing a poly-copper bullet plus a poly case. Looks like this might be the one that reshapes the gun industry.

    Comment

    • cory
      Chieftain
      • Jun 2012
      • 2985

      Color me skeptical. I won't be relying on poly-anything bullets to protect myself or my loved ones anytime soon. I'm going to need to see a lot of real world data before I even consider biting on this.
      "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

      Comment

      • stanc
        Banned
        • Apr 2011
        • 3430

        However good it might be for civilian defensive pistol ammo, it doesn't appear suitable for general purpose, military rifle/machine gun applications.
        when it encounters tougher barriers it is designed to break upit will not defeat soft body armor.

        Comment

        • stanc
          Banned
          • Apr 2011
          • 3430

          NDIA presentation by Jim Schatz, looking at the Intermediate Caliber Cartridge concept:

          Comment

          • LRRPF52
            Super Moderator
            • Sep 2014
            • 8569

            Gee whiz Batman. Somebody talking about overmatch with a mix of machineguns, SM's, and Sniper System chambered in 6.5mm to close the gap with PKM's and SVD's, along with .338MG's.

            Never been done before...
            NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

            CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

            6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

            www.AR15buildbox.com

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              Yeah, I thought you would like that.

              Comment

              • BluntForceTrauma
                Administrator
                • Feb 2011
                • 3897

                As always, Stan, great find. Schatz has been around ever since I joined the fray in late 2003. I seem to remember some of his early presentations were equally as enthusiastic but stumped for the 6.8 SPC and featured Roberts' gel tests. I bet you could dig up some of his earlier NDIA PowerPoints.

                Good to see he's coming around to an intermediate cartridge with high BC bullets. A very simple concept to grasp, one would think, for anyone with more than a beginner's knowledge of ballistics, but the fact that some have held on so long to an intermediate cartridge with low BC bullets shows the extent emotion and ego can interfere with logic.

                I agree with the need for a common, intermediate cartridge (6.5mm caliber suggests itself, but .250, .260, .270 is workable) for a family of squad weapons. Must be high BC. Must have some kind of recoil mitigation ("constant recoil" seems the simplest). In my personal opinion, the 6.5 Grendel already has the highest amount of recoil acceptable for mass recruits.

                I agree with .338 for a family of support weapons (sniper and heavy-er MGs).

                I disagree that polymer cases will be ready any time within the next, oh, 50 years, if ever.

                I would add the need for a laser-ranged, airburst, 40mm "Carl Gustav"-type launcher whose grenades have pointy, high BC nose-cones. I boil down infantry combat to an exercise in getting at infantry ensconced behind cover. Laser-ranged air-burst, if they can make it affordable and rugged, is the real game-changer here.

                Anyway, as LR hinted, that presentation is kind of an eye-roller for our particular community who seems to have "got it" for quite some time now.

                Good for Schatz and I hope he keeps up the good work and influences the direction of small arms development in the direction it has long needed to go.
                :: 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

                  Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                  As always, Stan, great find. Schatz has been around ever since I joined the fray in late 2003. I seem to remember some of his early presentations were equally as enthusiastic but stumped for the 6.8 SPC and featured Roberts' gel tests. I bet you could dig up some of his earlier NDIA PowerPoints.
                  John, that was my recollection, too. However, it appears my memory may be faulty. I checked his past NDIA presentations and found one from 2008 that had only a single slide devoted to 6.8 SPC. And in 2011, he was fairly even-handed in covering 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallar...1456Schatz.pdf
                  I agree with the need for a common, intermediate cartridge (6.5mm caliber suggests itself, but .250, .260, .270 is workable) for a family of squad weapons. Must be high BC.
                  Concur with high-BC requirement. But, although I once argued for a common caliber, I've since come to think that a two-caliber system is better. That's due in part to Paul pointing out the issue of combat endurance, which would suffer with a rifle/carbine cartridge significantly bulkier and heavier than 5.56 NATO.
                  Must have some kind of recoil mitigation ("constant recoil" seems the simplest). In my personal opinion, the 6.5 Grendel already has the highest amount of recoil acceptable for mass recruits.
                  Yeah. After shooting Greg's Grendels, which was a somewhat painful experience, I kinda wonder if it might have too much recoil for the average recruit. Of course, I was shooting left-handed for the first time in my life, which no doubt accounts at least in part for the unpleasantness. And, I'm also a long, long, looooong way from being the age of the typical recruit, which might possibly be another factor.
                  I agree with .338 for a family of support weapons (sniper and heavy-er MGs).
                  Sniper rifle, okay. Machine gun, I question. The .338 just doesn't have the anti-materiel capability of the .50 caliber. It seems to me that if more range is desired for anti-personnel use than could be delivered by a 6.Xmm machine gun, it would be better in a caliber/cartridge smaller and lighter than either .338 Lapua or .338 Norma. Soldiers could carry only half as much linked .338 ammo as 7.62 NATO, and that (IMO) would be too great of a loss in combat endurance of foot-mobile infantry.
                  I would add the need for a laser-ranged, airburst, 40mm "Carl Gustav"-type launcher whose grenades have pointy, high BC nose-cones.
                  I wonder if low-velocity 40mm grenades would benefit from a streamlined nose?
                  I boil down infantry combat to an exercise in getting at infantry ensconced behind cover. Laser-ranged air-burst, if they can make it affordable and rugged, is the real game-changer here.
                  Oh, nooooo. Not another "game changer." That term bugs me, because rarely does anything actually change the game.
                  Anyway, as LR hinted, that presentation is kind of an eye-roller for our particular community who seems to have "got it" for quite some time now.

                  Good for Schatz and I hope he keeps up the good work and influences the direction of small arms development in the direction it has long needed to go.
                  Yes, indeed. I was a bit surprised at the number of intermediate caliber studies shown on page 18. But, I was aware of the "industry programs" on page 20, and had heard of the 6.5x43 Lapua -- which seems to be a "stretched" 6.5 Grendel -- a year or two ago.

                  Comment

                  • BluntForceTrauma
                    Administrator
                    • Feb 2011
                    • 3897

                    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. You'd still have two 65G belt-fed LMGs per squad. In my scheme, I'd rely on the laser-ranged air-burst grenade launchers (LRAB) as my squad weapons giving heavy machine-gun-like effects. (They'd also have small shaped-charge and thermobaric warheads). Keeping the caliber to 40mm means you can carry more than the threat can carry RPGs. Using a Carl Gustav-type system means you can increase the velocity and range.

                    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. So we need to tweak it just a bit and endlessly. . . . Not that I'd ultimately object to any high BC intermediate they finally decided upon.

                    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. We cannot prevent all ammo shortage situations, otherwise we'd have to carry the argument to the extreme and advocate .22LR weapons and never worry about running out of ammo. There is a balance to be struck between carry quantity of ammo and capability, and that balance is a judgment call open for interpretation.

                    You're right, "game-changer" is overused.
                    :: 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

                    • BluntForceTrauma
                      Administrator
                      • Feb 2011
                      • 3897

                      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.

                      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.
                      :: 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

                        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:



                        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.

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Variable
                            Chieftain
                            • Mar 2011
                            • 2403

                            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, 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.....

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              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?

                              Comment

                              • cory
                                Chieftain
                                • Jun 2012
                                • 2985

                                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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X