SOCOM Looking at .260 Rem and 6.5 Creedmoor Sniper Systems

[stanc]

It's all about case length. Everyone wants the longest bullets, and ap gets long.

An AP projectile for 6.5 CM might not be all that long. The current AP bullets for 7.62 and 5.56 are shorter than the Ball and Special Ball projectiles.

[SDet]

I'm reading 1" on 855a1, or the same as 77gr smk. Scale that up, and that's a long bullet. Same reason for 338 norma. Every little bit helps.

[stanc]

I'm reading 1" on 855a1, or the same as 77gr smk. Scale that up, and that's a long bullet.

Yup. But, M855A1 is lead-free Ball, not AP.

A lead-free Ball projectile for 6.5 CM would indeed be a long bullet. A tungsten-core AP bullet for 6.5 CM that follows the same pattern as M993 and M995 would not be so long.

[SDet]

You're correct. Had my terminology mixed up.

Still, 6.5 version of 855a1 would be pretty nice

[stanc]

https://uklandpower.com/2018/10/31/the-us-army-special-operations-command-usasoc-6-5-mm-precision-intermediate-calibre/

[grayfox]

Fox news has an article that the Army is going to develop a 6.8mm projectile, not a lot of specifics but the author seemed pretty sure it was the next NGSW and NGSAW..... if it were a monolithic FMJ it might have the profile with a better BC and yet be only 115-130 gr, of course the same could be done with a 6.5 in a mono-fmj style. A 6.8 in ~120 grs mono-fmj could possibly have a BC of 0.460 or so, not match quality but better than most 6.8's under 130 gr. With a case design that's not limited to the std brass, maybe it might be possible to get enough powder to drive it for the 500-600 yds they might be looking for... I'm guessing on the range distance, another thing I don't know is how much KE a proj needs to have for what the service would call acceptable for field terminal ballistics... is it 800 ftlbs, 700, 600 or what...
I'm not advocating for the 6.8 dia, just bringing it up...

Anyway, interesting article.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-army-bullets-bigger-bolder-and-harder-hitting

[LRRPF52]

Fox news has an article that the Army is going to develop a 6.8mm projectile, not a lot of specifics but the author seemed pretty sure it was the next NGSW and NGSAW..... if it were a monolithic FMJ it might have the profile with a better BC and yet be only 115-130 gr, of course the same could be done with a 6.5 in a mono-fmj style. A 6.8 in ~120 grs mono-fmj could possibly have a BC of 0.460 or so, not match quality but better than most 6.8's under 130 gr. With a case design that's not limited to the std brass, maybe it might be possible to get enough powder to drive it for the 500-600 yds they might be looking for... I'm guessing on the range distance, another thing I don't know is how much KE a proj needs to have for what the service would call acceptable for field terminal ballistics... is it 800 ftlbs, 700, 600 or what...
I'm not advocating for the 6.8 dia, just bringing it up...

Anyway, interesting article.
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/new-arm...harder-hitting

There's a thread on that, which is a different program entirely.

On the SOCOM side, they set realistic goals for something that should have happened in the 1950s.

On the big fat mean pickle machine Army side, there is this fantasy about a 16" barreled carbine launching a 125gr solid 400fps faster than a 24" barreled .270 Winchester can with 63gr of powder and 65,000psi chamber pressure.

[LR1955]

There's a thread on that, which is a different program entirely.

On the SOCOM side, they set realistic goals for something that should have happened in the 1950s.

On the big fat mean pickle machine Army side, there is this fantasy about a 16" barreled carbine launching a 125gr solid 400fps faster than a 24" barreled .270 Winchester can with 63gr of powder and 65,000psi chamber pressure.

In the 50's and 60's and 70's and 80's and 90's, the various branches of the service were perfectly happy with the 30 caliber bullet. M-118 SB and LR could easily outshoot the capabilities of most school trained snipers. M-80 could outshoot the capabilities of the average trained rifleman. Sure, some of the problems with were due to all the bad things about a high recoiling cartridge and service grade rifles. Most was because in most parts of the world, a guy can't see much past 300 yards and if they did see a enemy, the enemy was probably moving and or partially hidden. A 6.5 mm cartridge wouldn't have been decisive. Money needed to be spent on things that were decisive given the Soviet threat. WWIII wouldn't have been decided because NATO could have been using a 6.5 / 08 instead of 7.62 NATO.

As for it being a fantasy about getting those velocities out of a 16 inch barreled carbine, why can't it happen? Why can't someone devise a system that can take the pressures and produce the velocities? Why can't someone develop a powder that produces the velocities without the pressures? Just because a .270 of today can't doesn't mean someone with a purpose can't develop something that is leap ahead and will make everything else obsolete overnight.

LR55

[Sticks]

Well, the moon was out of reach and considered impossible too. Solved that problem.

[LRRPF52]

In the 50's and 60's and 70's and 80's and 90's, the various branches of the service were perfectly happy with the 30 caliber bullet. M-118 SB and LR could easily outshoot the capabilities of most school trained snipers. M-80 could outshoot the capabilities of the average trained rifleman. Sure, some of the problems with were due to all the bad things about a high recoiling cartridge and service grade rifles. Most was because in most parts of the world, a guy can't see much past 300 yards and if they did see a enemy, the enemy was probably moving and or partially hidden. A 6.5 mm cartridge wouldn't have been decisive. Money needed to be spent on things that were decisive given the Soviet threat. WWIII wouldn't have been decided because NATO could have been using a 6.5 / 08 instead of 7.62 NATO.

As for it being a fantasy about getting those velocities out of a 16 inch barreled carbine, why can't it happen? Why can't someone devise a system that can take the pressures and produce the velocities? Why can't someone develop a powder that produces the velocities without the pressures? Just because a .270 of today can't doesn't mean someone with a purpose can't develop something that is leap ahead and will make everything else obsolete overnight.

LR55

British Sniper Platoons in Basra could only engage reliably out to about 800m with their AI rifles in 7.62 NATO, which the insurgents quickly figured out, then placed their mortars and spotters just outside of the range of their 7.62 NATO weapons. Brits dumped the 7.62 NATO from their bolt gun inventory after that and went to .338 LM AIs. A simple barrel change could have put them back into business with one of the 6.5-08 class of cartridges and extended them out to 1200m, while reducing the recoil a bit.

This performance has been available since the late 1800s, with much lower chamber pressure than the ill-conceived .30 cal "Light Rifle" cartridge.


As to this NGSR cartridge, sure they can get those speeds. They are talking about pushing chamber pressure to 80ksi on the premise that if artillery pieces can run at those pressures, then shoulder-fired small arms should be able to also. All it takes is pressure and the containment vessel to make it happen. Without a revolutionary breakthrough in materials science and propellent technology, the thing will weigh and recoil a lot more than an M14. We're talking about smoking the performance of a 26" .270 Weatherby Magnum by at least 200fps, with a copper core, copper jacket, tungsten-tipped projectile.

I think the whole premise of fighting Russians with their body armor in infantry vs infantry combat is insane. If we look at what happened this past February in Syria, where the Russians took 2 armored battalions with artillery and combat engineer support, and launched an assault on some US SOF and Kurd forces at the Conoco Phillips plant over the Euphrates, we get a better picture of how the US deals with motorized and armored ground component forces.

ISR platforms involving every flying platform with sensors feeds into a network, and echelons of fire from B-52H, F-15E, F-22A, MQ-9, USMC 155mm Artillery (they've fired more artillery rounds in Syria than any other Artillery unit since Vietnam), then A-10C and AH-64D. When the Warthogs and Apaches finally got on station, there were only residual thermal signatures of body parts and equipment littering the desert floor like confetti-pilots complained that they would need to bring back their ordnance.

But we need an Infantry Service Rifle that can defeat Russian body armor at 600m because.......who cares about SDZs, shoot houses, and collateral effects doing COIN (the only practical environment for dismounted infantry).

Imagine clearing rooms with this type of weapon, where a 125gr EPR traveling 3400fps from the muzzle, with very high SD and BC just cuts through everything and onto the next row of homes/shacks across the street. Effects on human targets at close range will look more like varmint hunting with a .22-250, with heads and limbs deconstructing instantly from the hydrodynamic force, sending basically liquid matter in every direction, while the tungsten penetrator and copper core continue at normal rifle velocities through whatever was behind the enemy combatants (who will be insurgents or non-uniformed actors 90% of the time if the past 70 years is any indicator).

Commanders will cringe at the thought of the current and next generation of soldiers drawing these things from the Arms Room, because of the overmatching ballistic potential of this type of weapon compared to 20th century shoulder-fired weapons, and since it isn't on tracks and is supposed to be man-portable, they can't control it very well.

[bj139]

LR,
Is this what you are talking about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

[LR1955]

British Sniper Platoons in Basra could only engage reliably out to about 800m with their AI rifles in 7.62 NATO, which the insurgents quickly figured out, then placed their mortars and spotters just outside of the range of their 7.62 NATO weapons. Brits dumped the 7.62 NATO from their bolt gun inventory after that and went to .338 LM AIs. A simple barrel change could have put them back into business with one of the 6.5-08 class of cartridges and extended them out to 1200m, while reducing the recoil a bit.

This performance has been available since the late 1800s, with much lower chamber pressure than the ill-conceived .30 cal "Light Rifle" cartridge.


As to this NGSR cartridge, sure they can get those speeds. They are talking about pushing chamber pressure to 80ksi on the premise that if artillery pieces can run at those pressures, then shoulder-fired small arms should be able to also. All it takes is pressure and the containment vessel to make it happen. Without a revolutionary breakthrough in materials science and propellent technology, the thing will weigh and recoil a lot more than an M14. We're talking about smoking the performance of a 26" .270 Weatherby Magnum by at least 200fps, with a copper core, copper jacket, tungsten-tipped projectile.

I think the whole premise of fighting Russians with their body armor in infantry vs infantry combat is insane. If we look at what happened this past February in Syria, where the Russians took 2 armored battalions with artillery and combat engineer support, and launched an assault on some US SOF and Kurd forces at the Conoco Phillips plant over the Euphrates, we get a better picture of how the US deals with motorized and armored ground component forces.

ISR platforms involving every flying platform with sensors feeds into a network, and echelons of fire from B-52H, F-15E, F-22A, MQ-9, USMC 155mm Artillery (they've fired more artillery rounds in Syria than any other Artillery unit since Vietnam), then A-10C and AH-64D. When the Warthogs and Apaches finally got on station, there were only residual thermal signatures of body parts and equipment littering the desert floor like confetti-pilots complained that they would need to bring back their ordnance.

But we need an Infantry Service Rifle that can defeat Russian body armor at 600m because.......who cares about SDZs, shoot houses, and collateral effects doing COIN (the only practical environment for dismounted infantry).

Imagine clearing rooms with this type of weapon, where a 125gr EPR traveling 3400fps from the muzzle, with very high SD and BC just cuts through everything and onto the next row of homes/shacks across the street. Effects on human targets at close range will look more like varmint hunting with a .22-250, with heads and limbs deconstructing instantly from the hydrodynamic force, sending basically liquid matter in every direction, while the tungsten penetrator and copper core continue at normal rifle velocities through whatever was behind the enemy combatants (who will be insurgents or non-uniformed actors 90% of the time if the past 70 years is any indicator).

Commanders will cringe at the thought of the current and next generation of soldiers drawing these things from the Arms Room, because of the overmatching ballistic potential of this type of weapon compared to 20th century shoulder-fired weapons, and since it isn't on tracks and is supposed to be man-portable, they can't control it very well.

Absolutely correct, a Brit sniper rifle L3A1 (?) shoots M-80 ball, not M-118 Long Range. There are limits to M-80 ball. Also, just because the Brits were too stupid to call in counter battery fire with their own mortars doesn't mean a rifle or cartridge is obsolete. Someone shoots at you with a mortar is because they know you can't reach back with a rifle. So you shoot back with another mortar or artillery or air power. Nothing earth shattering about that concept.

Talk about SDZs? How about the SDZ for a .338 Lapua Magnum? They have to be fired on .50 cal or greater ranges. Not too common on most military posts.

As for noise and overpressure created by some sort of future cartridge from a carbine, I bet the same would hold for a 6.5 going 3400 fps as a 6.8 going 3400 fps. And what happened to the use of suppressors in CQB? Of course -- no one has devised one that can take that type of overpressure. Again, no one has devised one -- yet. Mostly because no one has yet to get 3400 fps from a carbine.

Finally, no one here as been able to say why this capability could not be obtained and that is the point of my statement. There is nothing keeping someone from developing some sort of better propellant, firearm, barrel, cartridge that can hit what ever velocity someone is demanding. May not be possible today but given enough time, history has proven that it does happen.

LR55

[LRRPF52]

Brits couldn't call counter indirect fires because it was a semi-permissive environment. They were shooting off the roof of their CIMIC House, with maybe 90 dudes holed up there in Southern Iraq.

There were elements of the Shia Mahdi Army holding out, launching attacks against them from the city, which was inhabited by its normal residents who wanted nothing to do with the war.

From all my encounters and working with the Brits, they are way ahead of the power curve compared to US units when it comes to understanding the locals, the value they place on reconnaissance, and their sniping community is largely what we based ours off of when standing up peacetime sniper schools.

The USMC, US Army, and SF took most of the templates for sniper courses from the Brits and formed our schools in the late 1970s and 1980s based heavily off of those POIs. Their ammo for the AI rifles was selected from lots of normal NATO ball and had a higher accuracy potential than random M80.

During their campaign in Basra, some SAS guys stopped by with a .50 BMG and let them have at it against the mortar spotters, who had become overly-confident in their ability to stay just outside of the effective range of the 7.62 NATO sniper rifles.

Negotiating the SDZ issue for SOCOM's 6.5CM is an easy fit as it is, since any range meant for transition fire or most of the existing long guns works.

Setting up ranges for every swinging Joe with an EPR-launching death rifle will be a different ballgame. I'm all for pushing the capabilities, but the requirement to defeat Russian body army at 600yds seems like a fool's errand to me if that's the determining factor for the physics of the new rifle. It shows a serious disconnect from reality for whoever conceived that specification.

I think it has more to do with General Milley wanting to make a mark in an era where the USAF, USMC, SOCOM, and USN are getting crazy money for new toys, and the big Army doesn't seem to have a flagship Christmas toy to show off. Hence the ISCR 7.62 NATO Rifle attempt (failed of course), and now this.