New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[JASmith]

Some of Berger's bullets are close to 5.5 calibers long.

We also seem to assume that lead-free must be implemented with iron or steel. While iron and steel are about as inexpensive as one can get, and economy is one of the reasons a lot of bullets and cases are made from steel, denser "green' materials exist but are more expensive.

[stanc]

Some of Berger's bullets are close to 5.5 calibers long.

Yes. I figure a lead-free 130gr bullet will be close to 6 calibers long, and a companion tracer even longer. Is that feasible?

We also seem to assume that lead-free must be implemented with iron or steel. While iron and steel are about as inexpensive as one can get, and economy is one of the reasons a lot of bullets and cases are made from steel, denser "green' materials exist but are more expensive.

The Nammo lead-free bullets used by Norway have a two-piece steel core. The US M855A1 has a steel tip and copper slug. It seems logical to me to plan for using the types of materials that have actually proven acceptable to the military.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Waveslayer linked to an article in the Washington Times about Russia showing a "tactical advantage."

One quote: "While some national leaders focus on big defense issues, Mr. Putin has taken a personal interest in one of the smallest: the rifle. . . . Putin actually goes out and shoots these things,” Gen. Scales said.

Please, dear God, don't let me actually grow to like the bastard!

John

P.S. And, by the way, I note that, Scott Traudt, an executive with Green Mountain, says, “They’ve got new grenade launchers that are awesome."

[nincomp]

Please, please John, do not post photos (or worse, videos) of you riding horseback with your shirt off!

[NugginFutz]

I wanna see John wrestling a shark while shooting clay pigeons and then discovering a priceless box of Steel Cased Wolf 6.5 Grendel ammo at the foot of an ancient dig. (Pssst.. John - you can keep the shirt on)

[Michael]

Please, please John, do not post photos (or worse, videos) of you riding horseback with your shirt off!

I just threw up in my mouth a little...

[BluntForceTrauma]

Hey, it's been a long winter here in Minnesota, you guys wouldn't be able to see ANYTHING, you'd be blinded by that pasty white light!

John

[LRRPF52]

It's easy for us to critique Putin from the Western point of view, far off from the comfort provided by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but Russia has gone through their normal cycle of economic, political, then military collapse. They have been in a position of resurgence after a strong leader rose to the top after many years of downturn under Yeltsin.

Putin is such that he remains very cool-headed, but you know he's thinking that he is going to win whatever skirmish or conflict is on the table at the time, while the rest of the "leaders" in the West coordinate their metrosexual girlsuits and make empty threats about maybe doing some sanctions. Oh wait, Russia is the energy provider for Europe, especially after that little disaster in Japan, combined with Germany's utter insanity of shutting down one of their safest, cleanest sources of energy at the behest of the useful idiots for Moscow that think they are actually environmentalist/Green Party advocates.

With those fundamental realities, we all wish we had a real leader who was as much of an advocate for our own Nation as Putin is for his, rather than the Soviet plant that our current WH occupant is, who clearly is more concerned about our enemies, while reducing our military capacity to unprecedented levels since we became the world super power. All this at the threshold of the series of wars that will be fought over Europe-the wars we sought to prevent with NATO during the Cold War, that are now finally playing out with no tangible opposition to Russia.

With that big picture in mind, it will be interesting to see how much actual revenue is allocated to upgrading the US Military Small Arms, versus tying our hands with "green" and "environmentally conscious" projectiles that don't leave a nasty footprint....it seems to come right out of a genius and insidious playbook concocted from Lubyanka.

[stanc]

...it will be interesting to see how much actual revenue is allocated to upgrading the US Military Small Arms, versus tying our hands with "green" and "environmentally conscious" projectiles...

I really do not understand this line of thought, which I've seen stated over and over again, on this and other forums. The Russia army has been using steel-core bullets for decades, but somehow it's a catastrophe if we do?

[Tony Williams]

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/1...ange-calibres/

Thanks!

[BluntForceTrauma]

The Russia army has been using steel-core bullets for decades, but somehow it's a catastrophe if we do?

Stan, one question: Have the Soviets been using steel-core bullets due to their environmental sensitivities?

A follow up: Would the Soviets let environmental sensitivity limit their military capability in any way?

John

[JASmith]

++ 1 !!!

[stanc]

Stan, one question: Have the Soviets been using steel-core bullets due to their environmental sensitivities?

John, I couldn't care less what their reasons are. Isn't the important issue whether or not steel-core bullets are effective?

I can't count all the posts I've seen that laud the performance of 5.45x39 and 7.62x54R, both of which use steel-core bullets.

For that matter, in the latter part of WWII, steel-core bullets succeeded lead-core rounds as standard issue for US troops. Does anybody seriously think that would've been done if it reduced the effectiveness of small arms???

[BluntForceTrauma]

To be technical, 5.45 DOES have a small amount of lead.

The reasons for steel-core at the end of WWII are inconclusive. I would tend to think it was due to a shortage of raw material, rather than rigorously examined technical improvements.

It could well have "reduced the effectiveness" of small arms. Could be at that point the powers that be realized small arms were a relatively small factor in the overall killing and wounding equation, and that as long as it goes bang it's good enough when resources are scarce.

Again, the Russian use of steel core is to gain a certain amount of penetration, all while maximizing their use of raw materials. As such, they, again, exhibit cooly rational thinking to gain a military, albeit strategic advantage, and it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

If you want to compare apples to apples, and put up a steel-core 6.5 Grendel round against their steel-core 7.62x54R, that's a more fair comparison than hobbling the 65G to a lead-free bullet vs. Russian lead-cored, as we were discussing above.

John

[stanc]

To be technical, 5.45 DOES have a small amount of lead.

Yes, as do most conventional steel-core bullets. Can we call them "light green" bullets?

The reasons for steel-core at the end of WWII are inconclusive. I would tend to think it was due to a shortage of raw material, rather than rigorously examined technical improvements.

Actually, the reasons are not at all inconclusive. In the European theatre, the enemy had light armored vehicles, and there was much urban combat. Steel-core, .30 M2 AP had significantly better "hard target" penetration than lead-core, .30 M2 Ball, but was just as effective against personnel. Steel-core bullets cost a bit more than lead-core, but are typically better "general purpose" rounds.

I don't recall if it was this forum or the old one, but Bill Alexander once said his preference for a 6.5 Grendel military load would be steel-core.

It could well have "reduced the effectiveness" of small arms. Could be at that point the powers that be realized small arms were a relatively small factor in the overall killing and wounding equation, and that as long as it goes bang it's good enough when resources are scarce.

I'm pretty certain that conservation of a strategic material (i.e., lead) was the reason nations switched from lead to steel for core material of ball projectiles. But, if steel-core bullets were actually less effective than lead-core bullets, how do you explain that (lead-core) M80 Ball was originally intended to be used solely for training, while (steel-core) M59 Ball was reserved for combat?

Again, the Russian use of steel core is to gain a certain amount of penetration, all while maximizing their use of raw materials. As such, they, again, exhibit cooly rational thinking to gain a military, albeit strategic advantage, and it has nothing to do with environmentalism.

Okay. I agree they're not concerned with environmentalism. However, if they're as pragmatic as you say, would they be using steel-core bullets if such had poor terminal effects?

If you want to compare apples to apples, and put up a steel-core 6.5 Grendel round against their steel-core 7.62x54R, that's a more fair comparison than hobbling the 65G to a lead-free bullet vs. Russian lead-cored, as we were discussing above.

??? I'm aware of no comparison being made to lead-core 7.62x54R. The comparison was with steel-core 7.62x54R.

I would be quite willing to have a steel-core vs steel-core comparison. What is the BC and MV of the Wolf steel-cased 100gr FMJ load?