+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Third Generation Battle Rifle (/showthread.php?tid=5679)
Third Generation Battle Rifle - stanc - 06-20-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:This puts me back on my broken record track of the need for a new LMG, which would really provide a noticeable set of capabilities for the Infantry Rifle Squad and Platoon, especially if it demonstrated an acceptable set of performance parameters that could deal with the PKM for reach and penetration, with significantly less weight and recoil for the gunner.This puts me back on my broken record of wishing someone would actually demonstrate it.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - bwaites - 06-20-2013
stanc Wrote:This puts me back on my broken record of wishing someone would actually demonstrate it.
Stan!!! Welcome back!
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Variable - 06-21-2013
bwaites Wrote:Stan!!! Welcome back!
Ditto! Welcome back.
As for demonstrating performance---
People keep telling me that M855A1 (the copper core trial winner, not the other one) is the new hotness, but I haven't managed to get any in my mitts.
I wonder what the grain weight would be for a similar 6.5 projectile which received M855A1 style treatment? Maybe 110 grains? If you replaced the rear copper slug with steel (cost reduction) and kept the front steel penetrator seperate (so it'd still snap on yaw), how much powder space would be lost? Maybe not that much?
http://usarmorment.com/pdf/M855A1.pdf
I'm thinking that penetration with 6.5 sectional densities would be pretty darn good, and the new M855A1 is purported to be decently accurate to boot.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - ricsmall - 06-21-2013
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3461[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]3461[/ATTACH]not to derail, but that is very impressive variable! I have some unknown to me 5.56 rounds that have a brown colored, plastic? tip. You can just about remove the tip with your fingernail. Can anyone enlighten me as to what kind of round it is? Im thinking a frangible round, but dont know for sure. Ill try and get a pic up in a bit.
i looked closer, part of the tip i took off and under it looks like copper. Any ideas?[ATTACH=CONFIG]3460[/ATTACH]
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Variable - 06-21-2013
I can't tell in those pics (distorted view), but maybe they are 5.56 "Optimized" rounds? Basically similar to a Barnes Tipped triple shock IIRC
Third Generation Battle Rifle - SHORT-N-SASSY - 06-21-2013
My limited research has failed to produce the Ballistic Coefficient of the 62-grain steel-core projectile used in the M855A1 EPR. Can anyone help?
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Variable - 06-21-2013
SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:My limited research has failed to produce the Ballistic Coefficient of the 62-grain steel-core projectile used in the M855A1 EPR. Can anyone help?
I can't find it either, except for this: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-balistic-coefficient-of-a-62gr-m855a1-bullet:rolleyes::confused::eek:
"A 62 gr M855A1 bullet has a Ballistic Coefficient: 0.371. Initial Velocity: 2970 fps."
Needless to say, an anonymous unattributed answer on "Cha-Cha" isn't anything I'd cite anywhere.LOL:o
Third Generation Battle Rifle - LRRPF52 - 06-21-2013
The word I'm hearing about M855A1 is that it buckles people in half, even from 10" carbines.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Michael - 06-21-2013
Variable - here is your bullet with more info. http://www.aschq.army.mil/ac/aais/ioc/LCAAP/Industry_Day/634272332137343750.pdf
Third Generation Battle Rifle - stanc - 06-21-2013
Variable Wrote:Ditto! Welcome back.Thanks, guys. Wish I could say I'm having fun...
Quote:As for demonstrating performance---Maybe. My guess would be circa 100 grains.
People keep telling me that M855A1 (the copper core trial winner, not the other one) is the new hotness, but I haven't managed to get any in my mitts.
I wonder what the grain weight would be for a similar 6.5 projectile which received M855A1 style treatment? Maybe 110 grains?
Quote:If you replaced the rear copper slug with steel (cost reduction) and kept the front steel penetrator seperate (so it'd still snap on yaw), how much powder space would be lost? Maybe not that much?I dunno. Need somebody more knowledgeable to answer that.
Quote:I'm thinking that penetration with 6.5 sectional densities would be pretty darn good...Concur.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Trooper - 06-22-2013
stanc Wrote:This puts me back on my broken record of wishing someone would actually demonstrate it.
The PKM is firing the 7.62x54R which is equivalent to the .30-06 or the British .303 so we are dealing with a medium MG. The PKM then is more like our M240. How do those two compare in performance? How equivalent is the .308 to the .30-06 or .303 British?
Would it be possible to convert the M249 to 6.5 Grendel for testing?
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Trooper - 06-22-2013
If we ever do go to an GEN III battle rifle, there are only a few companies able to compete. FNH, Beretta, Remington/Bushmaster are the top three. Next tier would be HK, Colt, and IWI. After that I am not sure who could deal with the production and design costs.
Are any of these companies even designing for the 6.5 Grendel? Almost all of them do have a GEN III rifle.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - SHORT-N-SASSY - 06-22-2013
Variable Wrote:I can't find it either, except for this: http://www.chacha.com/question/what-is-the-balistic-coefficient-of-a-62gr-m855a1-bullet:rolleyes::confused::eek:
"A 62 gr M855A1 bullet has a Ballistic Coefficient: 0.371. Initial Velocity: 2970 fps."
Needless to say, an anonymous unattributed answer on "Cha-Cha" isn't anything I'd cite anywhere.LOL:o
Among the results from a subsequent search for more detailed information on the new, improved M855A1:
1, M855A1 - ShootersCalculator.com --- "Bullet Weight, 62 grains; Ballistic Coefficient, 0.371; Initial Velocity, 2970 fps."
2, M855A1: Should it be the New Round for Soldiers and Marines? Guns & Ammo, March 7, 2012 --- ". . . It shoots flatter. Of course the reason it shoots flatter is because they've juiced the round up so that it will fly at 3,100 fps. This would be a great achievement except for the fact that they did it by increasing the chamber pressure from 55,000 psi to 63,000 psi. That's a number closely approaching proof-load pressures. . . ."
3, An Army Outgunned - Physics Demands A New Basic Combat Weapon, By Joseph P. Avery, Ph.D, Military Review July-August 2012 --- "America's National Security strategy demands that our combat forces defeat enemy combatants across the full spectrum of battlefield environments, not just leafy jungles or the plains of Europe. Despite an increasing portfolio of enemies that are flexible, well armed, and robust, our Army, Marine Corps, and special operations forces have been stuck for decades hauling assault rifles firing NATO 5.56x45 millimeter (mm) (.223 caliber) varmint rounds over a half-century old. A decade into a new century, we need to adopt a more robust projectile and basic combat weapon (BCW) to meet current and emerging performance requirements. . . . In another attempt to address the significant shortfalls of our current BCW, the Army recently developed the lead-free, M855A1, 5.56mm, 62 gr. Enhanced Performance Round, tipped with a steel arrow penetrator and more powerful propellant *. . . . Ballistic Performance - The physics of external ballistics and current and future combat environments appear to demand a new caliber of weapons --- whether or not based on the M16 chassis. Many firearm experts, combat users, and studies have recommended the heavier and modernized 123 gr., 6.5x39mm Grendel Lapua Scenar cartridge as a replacement for the current 5.56mm NATO and possibly the 7.62mm NATO as well. . . . There is also a possibility that a 6.5mm cartridge, which fits into the 5.56mm magazine, could be 'enhanced' with a steel penetrator and more powerful propellant. That would provide the 123 gr. package with theoretically double the devastation and longer range than the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, giving our forces the edge in any combat environment and at any range. . . . A Versatile and Reliable BCW - United States combat forces require a versatile and reliable BCW with the ability to incapacitate the enemy at close quarters, with sufficient ballistic energy to smack-down enemy forces with authoritative force at long distance. We can either analyze the newly developed and currently existing 6.5mm cartridges, or attempt an expensive development of a new family of ammunition. Assessing the recently developed 123 gr. Lapua Scenar 6.5mm, with its high velocity, flat trajectories, and greater knockdown power than the 5.56mm well beyond 600 meters, may be a place to start. The new family of 6.5mm projectiles has over twice the lethality of the 5.56m, M855 NATO round, and regardless of the configuration, with a 123 gr. projectile that does not go subsonic until 1,275 yards, if you can see a target, you can theoretically hit it **. . . . Additional testing is required, and there is always the option of designing an entirely new platform around the current or an enhanced 6.5mm cartridge. It may be prudent to release a group of 6.5mm, M16-chassis weapons for operational field testing in Afghanistan by deployed forces to test against the 5.56mm M855, M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, and AK47. Research should look into possible enhancement of an even more powerful 6.5mm Enhanced Performance Round, but the enhanced round may not be ideal under all combat conditions. . . ."
All of which prompted me to revisit Bolt Thrust FAQ (http://www.beyond556.com/bboard/showthread.php?4802-Bolt-Thrust-FAQ).
* Wikipedia --- M855A1, "The new SMP-842 propellant in the round burns quicker in the shorter M4 carbine barrel, ensuring less muzzle flash and greater muzzle velocity."
** To wit: LRRPF52's recent eye-opening weekend excursion to 1,200 yards, with his trusty 16" 6.5 Grendel and Hornady's 123-grain A-MAX load, aired in these pages.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Gamecock84 - 06-26-2013
Good eval. I agree with most everything that is said, but worthy (usually=costly) optics are not trashed by the SCAR-H. I can speak to that personally.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H trash optics and SOPMOD accessories due to increased g-loadings on the return stroke of the action. I suspect it's because the SCAR does not have a sectional reciprocating mass like the AR15 family does, where the bolt carrier, buffer, and buffer weights are separate parts. The SCAR has no buffer system. It's basically an AR-18 operating system, which Armalite settled on in the 1960's because they had already licensed the Direct Impingement system to Colt, and could no longer legally make weapons with DI...but they wanted to.
The SCAR deals with recoil impulse and reciprocating mass with an elongated longitudinal cam pin travel in the carrier, which is great for dwell time and longevity of the bolt. The problem is that you have a BCG/oprod that weighs what a complete M4 carbine operating system weighs, impacting all at once when it chambers a new round. This has been identified as a source of major problems for things like optics, night vision, laser aiming modules, etc.
Within fragmentation range, the 5.56 can be brutal to be hit with, on an outside vital zone shot at that. Heck, people shot in the arms and legs with 5.56 within 200yds look horrible. I've seen it several times, and I only saw massive tissue damage, even on deflected rounds off body armor and rocks (fratricide incidents). It canoes people's heads open viciously, blows muscle tissue apart, fractures bones without even hitting them...basically all the hype isn't hype within 200yds.
It does get blown around by the wind-even the 77gr with a wimpy .362 BC sucks for energy and wind at distance. That's where 7.62 NATO comes in handy. It retains energy and cuts through the wind better. It is not ideal for kicking in doors or most of your close quarters engagement distances, unless everyone is wearing electronic muff ear pro and preferably using cans. 7.62 discharged indoors or even in blown-out buildings will rock your world, even when you're behind the guys who are blasting.
What I've heard about M855A1 is that is buckles guys in half, even from 10.5" Mk.18 CQBR M4A1's. I never used it as it came after I got out, but the sources who have related its performance to me are reliable.
In the end, I would opt for a deployable unit that had undergone a focused marksmanship training package that included shooting in wind conditions at distance more than an equipment solution. It wouldn't matter what caliber they had either, even though some are better than others. If your riflemen have no experience shooting in wind or at distance with formal instruction, they will just be missing anyway.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - montana - 06-26-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:The word I'm hearing about M855A1 is that it buckles people in half, even from 10" carbines.
I'm also hearing it shortens barrel life by over half ,the accuracy sucks, it's over pressured, and is very expensive.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - LRRPF52 - 06-27-2013
Quote:Good eval. I agree with most everything that is said, but worthy (usually=costly) optics are not trashed by the SCAR-H. I can speak to that personally.
It seems that NightForce will hold up on the SCAR, but I've also seen 2nd-hand but reliable source claims that the SOPMOD accessories, to include the IR pointers and NODs/TWS might also be suffering from the different characteristics of the SCAR's recoil impulse and return-stroke. I have heard it from several people within SOCOM who have used the SCAR, conducted torture-tests with the SCAR-L, and shot a lot with the SCAR-H.
Quote:I'm also hearing it (M855A1) shortens barrel life by over half ,the accuracy sucks, it's over pressured, and is very expensive.
The bad accuracy seemed to be documented from the start, which was then advertised as better accuracy. A longer projectile shank with a harder material than standard cup and core projectiles seems like a basic recipe in physics to reduce barrel life, especially when run at the pressures they're running. The nature of the projectile demands that it cost significantly more than conventional projectiles. The standard M855 is more expensive to make as it is, since it has 3 components to its bullet: cup, core, steel penetrator.
5.56 NATO is over-pressured enough as it is to meet a 500yd steel helmet perforation requirement by the CONARC board in the late 1950's. The original chambering of .222 Remington had no problem perforating a steel helmet at 200, 300, and 400yds. Goal posts were moved because someone wasn't happy, and the 500yd fail point was reached, although it did penetrate the first layer of the helmet. This is why .222 Special was born, then re-named .223 Remington, and type-classified as 5.56 NATO.
The funny thing is if they had kept the .222 Remington case and just blown the shoulder forward without increasing the case length any, we could have had a case that would support much longer ogive projectiles, and there would be no need to single-load bullets like the 75gr A-MAX, 80gr Berger, 90gr VLD. Imagine a 90gr high BC pill in the SAW and DM carbines that beats most .308 target pills, and an armor-piercing construction would be a lot better than .30 bore because of sectional density.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Tony Williams - 06-27-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:The funny thing is if they had kept the .222 Remington case and just blown the shoulder forward without increasing the case length any, we could have had a case that would support much longer ogive projectiles, and there would be no need to single-load bullets like the 75gr A-MAX, 80gr Berger, 90gr VLD. Imagine a 90gr high BC pill in the SAW and DM carbines that beats most .308 target pills, and an armor-piercing construction would be a lot better than .30 bore because of sectional density.
The basis of the case for adopting a .22 cal rifle was the combat studies which showed that nearly all small-arms fights took place within 300 yards. Within that range they thought light bullets fired at a high velocity would be fine, as they would maximise the hit probability while halving weight. They then seemed to lose confidence in this and started to demand longer-range performance, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that in that case, maybe a small .22 wasn't the best starting point.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - LRRPF52 - 06-28-2013
Tony Williams Wrote:The basis of the case for adopting a .22 cal rifle was the combat studies which showed that nearly all small-arms fights took place within 300 yards. Within that range they thought light bullets fired at a high velocity would be fine, as they would maximise the hit probability while halving weight. They then seemed to lose confidence in this and started to demand longer-range performance, but it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that in that case, maybe a small .22 wasn't the best starting point.
The reliance on dumping energy into the target with the SCHV concept has as much merit as it does, as long as the bullet stays above fragmentation threshold, which is hard to extend range-wise with a lightweight and narrow projectile. 200yds is about right for any 20" gun with M193, and the carbines really don't suffer as much as is portrayed in the gun rags. The BC drives energy loss more than anything.
The hit probability was demonstrably increased in looking at entry-level shooting scores, who have basically no real recoil to deal with, and a very flat-shooting cartridge for distances out to 200m. Then there were the AGILE reports from initial fielding with ARVN units, with US Advisors in-tow, many of whom had a lot of combat experience from WWII and Korea. Everyone seemed to be impressed with the different wound ballistics 5.56 generated, and a lot of what I've seen first-hand supports the same type of wound characteristics.
Add to that the unprecedented combat load a soldier could carry, and 5.56 makes a lot of sense for most of your Infantry Riflemen to carry, especially in geographic regions where engagement distances were well within 200yds.
The real areas where the Army and DoD failed us were with the SAW's chambering, and letting Infantry Squads get TO&E'd out all with 5.56 weapons, while getting rid of the Squad Marksman, Scout, and Assistant Squad Leader, then adopting the stupid Train-Fire marksmanship program oriented to conscripts shooting from fighting positions in the defense with a Soviet Armored and Motorized Infantry threat rolling through the Fulda Gap. Of course, during the Cold War, it made sense to have focus on what was anticipated as the main threat, but there really needed to be at least a contingency force structure for all the wars and LIC's we have actually fought both during and after the Cold War.
![[Image: US-Army-Rifle-Squad.gif]](http://www.tacticalfanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/US-Army-Rifle-Squad.gif)
The same is true today. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that the Army has at least 2 coherent Force Postures other than demand-driven trends in OIF and OEF, particularly WRT IED-resistant vehicles that are inappropriate for a conventional war, the stupidity of cordon-and-search habits of heavy units in OIF, and the insanity of COPs in ISAF.
The only sensible small arms weapon system for an organization that refuses to allow talented and qualified officers to write doctrine is to reduce the weight of current systems, without sacrificing capability. A new standard service rifle/carbine won't do that, especially not in a larger caliber.
A new LMG that can displace some of the 7.62 belt-fed weapons with a lighter ammunition footprint would benefit even the worst offenders, no matter how illogical the chain of command and leadership climate was, because machine gunners will typically engage targets at longer distances and there is a system in-place that is mandated Army-wide to ensure they at least get transition range training, which is a fun range to shoot.
In short, we need a 3rd Generation LMG if anything, and the organization needs to support the recently-adopted TO&E of DM's in the Infantry Squad by creating a program to sustain the skill sets that DM's need to have to be as effective as they can be. The equipment comes after that.
![[Image: image278.jpg]](http://www.infantrydrills.com/images/image278.jpg)
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Michael - 06-28-2013
Talking about the T/O WRT the T/E is a great discussion. The 13 man rifle squad has been around for a while in the Marines, but the battles we have been fighting over the last several years (and will probably continue to fight to some extent and the big land army battles are a thing for the operational planners to play with in the school house) have proven that there is not enough ass in the squad - hence all the ad-hoc T/O where you strap on a Human intel guy, CA, DM/sniper, J-TAC Etc. Puts an awful lot of moving parts on that young Sgt Sqd Ldr to manage after not training with those assets.
There was an experiment conducted several years ago called 'Distributed Operations' https://www.mccdc.usmc.mil/FeatureTopics/DO/A%20Concept%20for%20Distributed%20Operations%20-%20Final%20CMC%20signed%20co.pdf that I had a part in. The two long poles in the tent were training and logistics. The young squad leader had not had the seasoning/military education to manage all of the assets he was given, and the standard military logistics system was woefully inadequate to supply small units all over the battlefield with any type of reliability or stealth.
Third Generation Battle Rifle - Tony Williams - 06-28-2013
LRRPF52 Wrote:A new LMG that can displace some of the 7.62 belt-fed weapons with a lighter ammunition footprint would benefit even the worst offenders, no matter how illogical the chain of command and leadership climate was, because machine gunners will typically engage targets at longer distances and there is a system in-place that is mandated Army-wide to ensure they at least get transition range training, which is a fun range to shoot.
In short, we need a 3rd Generation LMG if anything, and the organization needs to support the recently-adopted TO&E of DM's in the Infantry Squad by creating a program to sustain the skill sets that DM's need to have to be as effective as they can be. The equipment comes after that.
I agree with that - the main advantage of a new long-range intermediate calibre would lie in reducing the weight of the portable MGs and ammunition carried by dismounted troops (see my post on another thread), with DMRs also benefitting. Having got that sorted, though, the advantages of a standard rifle/MG calibre within the squad, plus more reliable hitting power and penetration than 5.56mm, might well lead to a single-calibre squad.