New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[woohoo]

The consensus by most about the GPC is that it should be able to meet or exceed the performance of the 308 while using military type green bullets or the make it possible to engage the enemy using the 7.62x54 with 24" barrels. The firearm should be typical configuration of current use. Carbines 12-14.5" barrels, DMRs 20"barrels or less, LMGs short barrels for dismounted and possibly 20-24" for mounted. The ammo should weigh 20% less than the 308. The recoil should be as little as possible to help controllability of the firearm.
The AR15 is not large enough or strong enough to handle a more powerful cartridge in combat conditions.

[XcountryRider]

If using a design similar to mine with a .25 G7 BC the length of the bullet is about the length of the 139 Lapua. If I seat the bullet where only the boattail is in the powder column the COAL will be 2.7" That is close enough to call it a 308 length. The Carcano diameter case will feed from 308 Pmags so that is what I am using, a lightweight 308 with Pmags. A SCAR 17 would be the best combat platform at this time.

BTW, that is a 111gr bullet. I have another turned bullet designed for the 264/Grendel that weighs 100 grains and has a G7 BC of .25. Figure that can be pushed apx 200 fps faster than a 123 with nearly the same BC as the 123 Amax.

That would be nice in a hunting bullet.

[LRRPF52]

SOCOM is getting away from 20" guns for the DM's and Snipers. KAC M110K1 is what the units are going to on the SOF side, with SCAR-H's sprinkled here and there.



Nobody wants a 20" gun anymore, especially when you take shooting from positions other than prone (reality) into account.

Even with the 30% weight reduction of the polymer/metal cases, 7.62 NATO ammunition profile is such that it occupies a lot of space on the soldier's load, especially with armor. The weight becomes more tolerable, but not the bulk. I wonder if this CLAWS program has a dominance of level-headed end-users influencing the demand, or mostly inexperienced and novice testers.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Still not "feelin' " the need for 7.62 NATO equivalency.

Yes, better performance is always, uh, "better." But to put it bluntly, I'm willing to give up some "performance" in order to keep RECOIL manageable. Low recoil INCREASES hits among newly trained soldiers. The 6.5 Grendel, or something very similar (.25 Grendel, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 Grendel), can ALREADY match 7.62 at 1000 yards for those rare occasions when necessary.

Keep the big picture in mind: Two 6.5 Grendel loadings (105gr for AR, 120gr for DMR/LMG) COMBINED with the new airburst grenade launchers are gonna do pretty much everything man-portable small arms need doing.

Unless the state-of-the-art makes BIG advances soon, trying for 7.62 NATO performance is simply going to make the cartridge and weapons more bulky than necessary.

I'll compromise on a bigger cartridge if you compromise on vastly improved recoil management, something along the lines of a perfected constant recoil system.

John

P.S. This lead-free program irks me to no end. If we get in a serious shooting war with, oh, China, I say F*CK the Sierra Club (or whoever the hell drives "green" policy in our damn military) and use equipment that WINS the war. Can we finally get some adults in charge of national defense? We'll worry about the environmentalists wetting themselves later. . . .

[LRRPF52]

At least some of the belt-fed weapons systems and DMR's need to meet or exceed 7.62x54R capabilities. You will understand if engaged from a distance with one. That system does have reach, penetration, and the PKM is lightweight, unlike out 7.62 NATO belt-fed weapons.

This is the most important thing that needs to be addressed from a small arms perspective, not individual service carbines. Get lit up by belt-fed 7.62, and you will want equal or more firepower with reach, from as light or a lighter belt-fed that is working with the DM's.

A 130gr cup & core 6.5mm can accomplish that. A lighter solid/alloy projectile with high BC can as well.

[woohoo]

At least some of the belt-fed weapons systems and DMR's need to meet or exceed 7.62x54R capabilities. You will understand if engaged from a distance with one. That system does have reach, penetration, and the PKM is lightweight, unlike out 7.62 NATO belt-fed weapons.

.

That's it, if we don't have something that can match their 7.62x54 out of 24" barrels we are in the same boat as now. They sit just out of our range and engage us at will.
I know the US mil is going to shorter barrels and that is why I'm trying to match their 7.62x54 ballistics with a cartridge and 16" barrel combo. It can be done and with a DI AR type firearm that weighs 7lb bare. The SCAR weighs around 8lbs and that is the best battle rifle they could come up with. 1/2" in action length if done right doesn't add that much weight. All of the AR10 variants are too heavy IMO.
As for the LMG, I've already checked on converting a MK48 or Minimi to the Carcano based cartridges and know it can be done and will last longer than the MK48 308 version.
These cartridges with the bullets I'm talking about when shot from 24" barrels will come very close to the exterior ballistics of the 300 win mag sniper load. That is fairly good ballistics out of an 8lb semi auto rifle.

[LRRPF52]

This requirement to out-class the 7.62x54R proves the point that you have to have different calibers, and that our focus on messing around with carbines is mostly a total waste of time.

We need better DMC's and true Lightweight LMG's that will out-class the PKM/SVD. Those weapons used in conjunction with the RPG are a formidable combination, where the AKM only plays a local security role, just as M4's do for us.

[BluntForceTrauma]

OK, apologize for the rant. My theories are still unproven. I'm discussing, not arguing. Respect Harrison's firearms experience and always defer to Paul's military experience. I truly don't know how a 65G 120gr combat round would compare in head-to-head testing with Russian 7.62x54R 147gr of similar construction.

My thinking is that if we get lit up by a PKM, we can still match their RANGE and trajectory and winddrift with a 65G, even if our 120gr doesn't hammer as hard as their 147gr (and even that's up for debate because either a 120gr or a 147gr between the eyes is a bad day, and high SD bullets hold promise for good penetration vs. even bullets that weigh more). We still keep their heads down until we laze their range and burst a new 35mm grenade on their skulls. In the meantime, we've got lighter, more compact weapons and ammo. When their PKM runs out of ammo, we've still got twice as much for the weight and bulk. Viable?

John

[LRRPF52]

Retained energy is important in the long-range engagement. Even misses are effective when impacting rock or other hard material that you are using as cover.

Mountainous Environment
You receive enemy contact, far ambush from a PKM or 2, with SVD's and RPG's as the main effort. PKM's keep your head down, unable to assess the 3D's (distance, direction, disposition). While the PKM's keep you pinned, RPG's rain down upon you, with a considerable kill radius, as well as disorienting you and peppering you with fragmentation. Each impact reduces your combat capacity by some measure. Any exposed body part is engaged with aimed SVD fire.

Until you are able to place effective fire that does similar or worse to the enemy position, your options continue to erode. This is why shooting from positions and stand off from cover are so important if you are going to use small arms to solve this problem.

There's a way to insure yourself from getting into this type of mess, using basic infantry techniques, but most units don't have the discipline or leadership experience to do it, and gun teams get the most work out. It also slows down movement considerably, but it works.

The weapon systems that are used to solve these problems are belt-fed, sniper rifles, and mortars. This is excluding CAS from the equation.

[Nukes]

...KAC M110K1...

Any opinions on their E3 bolt?

[LRRPF52]

There was a recent thread discussing bolt geometry, with the Professional Ordnance, KAC, and other bolt lug profiles compared.

[LRRPF52]

Update on the Polymer ammunition. It's garbage, and HANKA's suspicions were spot-on. It isn't anywhere near a point of maturity, and materials strength and heat sensitivity tells me it's a lost cause. Only 17 out of 40 rounds even fired in this test, and there are major issues with the components.

http://8541tactical.com/2014/01/01/pcp-polymer-match-ammunition-review/

I would say that brass and steel are going to be common cartridge case materials for a long time, so that puts 7.62 NATO on the chopping block if weight is to be reduced.

[Schwag173]

Are there any new developments in caseless ammo? The last I heard about was with the HK G11 and that was about 30 years ago.

[LRRPF52]

Yes, they have been working on telescoped case ammunition with an LMG program. The problem with the G11 is that the case is now the chamber, and the chamber accumulates all the carbon build-up, rather than ejecting it along with the spent brass.

Caseless was a nice idea, but as long as you are burning something, the residue needs to be dealt with, and I'm not sure how far they have come with clean-burning propellants suitable for small arms.

[wiersy111]

Very interesting article. By this guys review of the ammo we won't be seeing that stuff hit the shelfs for a long time.