Alternative to 6.5 Grendel?

[cory]

2.45"-2.55" gives you mags like the G36, which suck to carry unless you're a large-stock Tutonic brute, and even then, that body type can carry as many STANAG 5.56 mags in less space, with the center of gravity of the mags closer to the soldier's C of G, which has become an even more important consideration due to the rampant usage of body armor.

2.5" COL is doable, but pushing the limits, especially for a small-statured soldier who is part of an army that has doctrine based around a significant basic load for individual infantrymen.

A smaller magazine footprint allows placement of other critical tools like commo, the new integrated electronics devices that combine GPS/radio/computer, IFAK, H2O, NVD's, frags, smoke grenades, and special items of equipment.

I'm not a small guy, but I'm not a brute (5'11 190lbs). I always hated having my magazines on my flak. I utilized a drog leg pouch. Much more comfortable, and magazine changes were much more efficient. I reserved the space on flak for a med kit(I could rest my arm on) and frags.

[BluntForceTrauma]

I've always thought that limiting the COL length puts an upper limit on recoil, as well. I think 7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, and 6.5 Grendel are already at the upper limit of desirability for recoil from an assault rifle round for the average recruit.

John

[LRRPF52]

If you look at the original assault rifle intermediate cartridge, it has a 33m case length, or max case length of 1.299", and max COL of 1.890". This cartridge changed military small arms forever.





The .221 Fireball has a max COL of 1.830". If you look at the Sturmgewehr magazines, they are much shorter in terms of overall length for cartridges, meaning you can carry a lot of them. They were steel then, but applying the same principle of a very short, bottle-necked case, rather than trying to appease the .30 cal nazis' of Dr. Carten's Ordnance Board, we could have had an insane little shooter if propellant technology had been tackled and addressed with serious efforts thinking outside the box.



It is possible to duplicate or exceed 5.56 NATO performance from the .221 Fireball case, using advanced propellants and existing metallic case technology. Go to 6mm or .257" and reduce the soldier's load. 90% of the people even carrying M4's will never, ever face the enemy in combat, but in case they do, they need a lightweight, compact PDW with at least 5.56 performance.

Heck, up to 50% of the personnel in a light infantry unit will not engage the enemy with their shoulder-fired weapons because of the nature of their duty positions.

If I could cut the soldier's load down, without compromising or even improving performance in the carbines, I would look at it seriously.

DM's and LMG's are another matter where 6.5 Grendel performance would be a heaven send.

[montana]

Something like this : http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/k...weapon-6x35mm/

[cory]

Something like this : http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/k...weapon-6x35mm/

Interesting, but if you're only gaining 74 ft lbs compared to the 5.56 NATO is it really worth introducing a new round?

[montana]

Interesting, but if you're only gaining 74 ft lbs compared to the 5.56 NATO is it really worth introducing a new round?

Less weight, less muzzle blast, carry more rounds. If it was my b"tt carrying the load across some place 50 miles from no where it would be.

[cory]

Less weight, less muzzle blast, carry more rounds. If it was my b"tt carrying the load across some place 50 miles from no where it would be.

Actually wouldn't it be more weight and muzzle blast compared to the same platform chambered in 5.56 NATO?

[montana]

Actually wouldn't it be more weight and muzzle blast compared to the same platform chambered in 5.56 NATO?

1] The receiver is 1\3 shorter including the magazine compared to the M-4
2] The 6X36 cartridge is based on the modified Fireball case which is more efficient with short barrels as compared top the 5.56, less powder= less muzzle blast.
3] The weight of the rifle is 4.5 lbs.

[cory]

Okay I get 2, but could you not chamber the KAC PDW in the 5.56 NATO and have a 4.5lb 5.56 PDW?

[montana]

Okay I get 2, but could you not chamber the KAC PDW in the 5.56 NATO and have a 4.5lb 5.56 PDW?

I don't know, the KAC Personal defense weapon uses dual short stroke gas pistons. I was more interested in the cartridge concept than the rifle. LRRPF52 was suggesting it was possible to duplicate or exceed the 5.56 NATO performance from the .221 Fireball case and I thought of the 6X35 round.

[stanc]

If you look at the original assault rifle intermediate cartridge, it has a 33m case length, or max case length of 1.299", and max COL of 1.890". This cartridge changed military small arms forever.

Forever? Nah. Maybe only 80 years or so, if people like Tony and Guardsman26 succeed in reinventing the battle rifle cartridge.

[mongoosesnipe]

Every time a new cartridge hits the market or a new platform is deveoped most are not really all that new and usually not significantly improved, least we forget the entire concept of an assult rifle is that engagements do not typically exceed 400 meters so having a cartridge effective at longer distance is not needed the Russians take th concept one further by only requiring the rifle to hit a man sized target at that distance putting 10 rounds up a gnats ass at a 1/4 of a mile is an impressive feat but it isn't required in the typical combat enguagement

So nothing will change, the only innovation I could see happening that would succeed in revolutionizing the assult rifle would be the development of caseless ammunition which would allow everything to become smaller lighter and in theory simpler as there is no need to extract caseless ammunition, but such projects have been shelved in favor of more conventional designs as there has not been the need for more advanced weapons, but you never no what need the future will bring

Though according to the internet so it must be true the US is working on developing the caseless concept for the role of LMG...

[Tony Williams]

The problem with holding down COL to a minimum is that you are liable to end up without enough space to load long-ogive bullets. This problem affects the 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and even the .338 Lapua Magnum (which is why the .338 Norma Magnum was developed). This won't matter in short-range weapons but it surely does if you want a decent long-range performance.

[LRRPF52]

The problem with holding down COL to a minimum is that you are liable to end up without enough space to load long-ogive bullets. This problem affects the 5.56x45, 7.62x51 and even the .338 Lapua Magnum (which is why the .338 Norma Magnum was developed). This won't matter in short-range weapons but it surely does if you want a decent long-range performance.

Which is why you don't try to make a do-all weapon. Soldier's load and combat sustainment is more important than increased effective range all day long. A 1000m-capable 16" carbine is a total waste of resources in the hands of at least 50% of the combat arms soldiers in a light infantry platoon.

A 1000m-capable carbine in the hands of 6-8 of the more senior soldiers in a light infantry platoon would be a game-changer. Do we penalize the rest of them and the logistics system for those 6-8 soldiers?

[Trooper]

Every time a new cartridge hits the market or a new platform is deveoped most are not really all that new and usually not significantly improved, least we forget the entire concept of an assult rifle is that engagements do not typically exceed 400 meters so having a cartridge effective at longer distance is not needed the Russians take th concept one further by only requiring the rifle to hit a man sized target at that distance putting 10 rounds up a gnats ass at a 1/4 of a mile is an impressive feat but it isn't required in the typical combat enguagement

So nothing will change, the only innovation I could see happening that would succeed in revolutionizing the assult rifle would be the development of caseless ammunition which would allow everything to become smaller lighter and in theory simpler as there is no need to extract caseless ammunition, but such projects have been shelved in favor of more conventional designs as there has not been the need for more advanced weapons, but you never no what need the future will bring

Though according to the internet so it must be true the US is working on developing the caseless concept for the role of LMG...

We are doing similar procedures with the use of the Designated Marksmen. The problem is that we have two rifles, two cartridges and lots of spare parts. Likewise two MGs (M249 SAW and M240 GMG). If we can have one cartridge do both the mission of the 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 that saves a lot of logistics. Plus the 5.56x45 has been shown to not be effective against stone or brick buildings (same with the Russian 5.45x39).