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.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers
Collapse
X
-
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
-
-
NDIA presentation by Jim Schatz, looking at the Intermediate Caliber Cartridge concept:
Comment
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View PostAs 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.
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 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.
Comment
-
-
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
-
-
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
-
-
Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View PostI don't envision a .338 as a dismounted weapon because of ammo weight, only a vehicle-mounted replacement for M2 with more ammo capacity.
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.
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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View PostOh, 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.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostJust how much better, I'm not sure, and I'd really prefer a cartridge more like the 5.45x39 than the 5.56x45.
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
-
-
Originally posted by Variable View PostThere I was, tooling along in this thread nicely.... When all of a sudden you hit me with a plate glass door.LOL
5.45???
Straighten the case taper a bit to increase powder capacity, and maybe increase caliber to 6mm. No?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by stanc View PostOkay, but other people are advocating it for dismounted use, as is the manufacturer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc
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
-
Comment