+- 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: Lsat (/showthread.php?tid=776)
Lsat - stanc - 07-16-2011
Not 6.5 Grendel, but I thought it might be of interest.
![[Image: lsat7.jpg]](http://images-kitup.military.com/wp-content/gallery/cased-telescoped-ammunition-field-test/lsat7.jpg)
The Armys Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program, has shown promise over the past couple years and earned some funding for an initial usability test with Joes at the Maneuver Battle Lab at Benning.
The engineers at Picatinny are sending eight M249 SAW-like prototype machine guns that are specially-designed to fire the cased telescoped ammo for testers to put through the paces, including shoot house runs, field maneuvers and range quals at the squad and individual level.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/07/revolutionary-ammo-set-for-troop-test.html#ixzz1SEsKtszg
http://www.military.com/video/guns/automatic-weapons/lsat-cased-telescoped-ammo-test-shoot/664947645001/
Lsat - LRRPF52 - 07-17-2011
That is looking very promising. There appears to be not much recoil at all on that LMG, compared to the SAW. I also like the rate of fire slower. Do you know if these chamber like a standard cartridge?
Lsat - stanc - 07-17-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:That is looking very promising. There appears to be not much recoil at all on that LMG, compared to the SAW. I also like the rate of fire slower. Do you know if these chamber like a standard cartridge?No, they don't. IIRC, the LSAT LMG has a rotating chamber, but I don't specific details.
Lsat - Tony Williams - 07-18-2011
Current LSAT ammo cannot be used in conventional guns. It uses a push-through loading system with a separate chamber; there is no extractor groove.
While the 5.56mm LSAT is going through an evaluation test with the army, its future is in the balance. The team have been told to look at other calibres in order to provide a longer effective range. This has sharpened the interest in developing the optimum intermediate calibre using conventional technology: data learned from this could be transferred to LSAT, or could be used in conventional form as a fall-back (maybe with part-polymer cases) if LSAT fails.
The latest official presentation slides (from May's NDIA meeting) are here: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/Tuesday12170Phillips.pdf
Lsat - stanc - 07-16-2015
fyi
tony williams Wrote:just watched an updated presentation on ct/lsat. A few points:
- continued development of 5.56mm on hold because the army needs more lethality and doesn't believe 5.56mm can deliver. Hence the interest in 6.5mm.
- in ballistic comparisons with 5.56mm and 7.62mm, 6.5mm wins across the board except in recoil vs 5.56mm.
- the caliber configuration study which resulted in the identification of 6.5mm was task i for ct/lsat.
- task 2 is to produce 6.5mm ammo and a carbine for a capability demo (trl 5) by mid-2016.
- task 3 is to produce 7.62mm ammo and an mg to the same trl 5, also by mid-2016. The initial load will apparently be based on the m80 (?)
the army apparently is still interested in 7.62mm because of its higher lethality.
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=6257.22
Lsat - LRRPF52 - 07-16-2015
Yup. Been tracking that for a while, to include lengthy conversations with one of the soldiers who was part of the operational test Platoon/Unit field studies at Benning and Alaska. I think they formed this test unit and let them work with the guns for a year. Everyone immediately fell in love with the LSAT, and looked at the SAW like an unwanted step child.
![[Image: original.jpg]](http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2015/05/06/392991/original.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dMffBi-cf8
I don't know what metrics are being referred to for lethality, but higher impact speed generally brings increased lethality, and the 7.62 simply can't compete in that area with 6.5mm since it isn't as fast from 400m on out.
Lsat - stanc - 07-16-2015
LRRPF52 Wrote:I don't know what metrics are being referred to for lethality, but higher impact speed generally brings increased lethality, and the 7.62 simply can't compete in that area with 6.5mm since it isn't as fast from 400m on out.That may be true of 7.62 M80 Ball, but what's to prevent 7.62 CT ammo from using high-BC bullets, and thereby equaling or exceeding 6.5 CT long range velocity/energy/lethality?
Lsat - BluntForceTrauma - 07-16-2015
Theoretically, nothing. Trade-off is increased weapon and ammo weight and recoil. As always, comes down to a judgment call whether the performance is worth the weight penalty.
Lsat - LRRPF52 - 07-16-2015
I wish they would just phase out 7.62mm systems altogether. It was a bad idea in the first, second, and third generations. I can see the allure if they are looking at existing projectile production lines, but with the turnover, that isn't a justification anymore really, especially since they are trying to transition to M80A1.
Good thing the cartridge weight is going down either way.
Lsat - biodsl - 07-17-2015
What am I missing here? Higher lethality? Is a 6.5 bullet less lethal than 7.62? Why not just go to a 6.5 full-power cartridge (performance akin to the .260 or 6.5 Creedmoor) to take advantage of increased speed and BC and drop the .30 cal altogether?
Lsat - stanc - 07-17-2015
biodsl Wrote:What am I missing here? Higher lethality? Is a 6.5 bullet less lethal than 7.62? Why not just go to a 6.5 full-power cartridge (performance akin to the .260 or 6.5 Creedmoor) to take advantage of increased speed and BC and drop the .30 cal altogether?It appears to me that the Army considers 6.5mm to be a viable upgrade from 5.56mm for carbines, but they're not comfortable with a reduction in caliber from 7.62mm for machine guns.
Lsat - cory - 07-17-2015
stanc Wrote:It appears to me that the Army considers 6.5mm to be a viable upgrade from 5.56mm for carbines, but they're not comfortable with a reduction in caliber from 7.62mm for machine guns.
Who said anything about replacing the MMGs with 6.5mm? That's where the .338 NM comes in. It's the LMG that needs to be replaced with the 6.5mm.
Lsat - stanc - 07-17-2015
cory Wrote:Who said anything about replacing the MMGs with 6.5mm?biodsl suggested going to full-power 6.5mm.
Quote:That's where the .338 NM comes in..338 Norma Magnum is not a CT round.
Quote:It's the LMG that needs to be replaced with the 6.5mm.And I imagine that's what the Army would do if a 6.5mm CT carbine were to be adopted.
Interestingly, it appears that the Army may be planning to copy the USMC, and switch from LMG to IAR for the squad auto.
Lsat - LRRPF52 - 07-17-2015
Squad Automatic Rifleman slot is being looked at with the belt-fed LSAT. Magazine fed would be backwards at this point, as the guys are running around with the belt-fed LSAT like it's a fun toy because it weighs almost half of what the SAW does.
As part of the test and evaluation Platoon/Unit structure, they also had the new KAC M110K carbines in 7.62 NATO. When some of those guns went down, they pulled the Leupold Mark 6 scopes off, slapped them on the LMG LSAT, and used it in both the semi automatic mode, as well as automatic mode at long range to fill the DM role, with very good hit probability using M855A1 projectiles.
Hit probability would increase of course with 6.5mm. They were also seeing significant increase in velocity with LSAT over the SAW, to the point that they used the 200m BDC reticle hash for 300m shots. Mean Time/Round Between Failure comparing LSAT to the SAW was twice as long with LSAT. There's just not much to not like about the system, and it performed better than expected in arctic conditions up in Alaska, with no change really in performance that they could see.
Lsat - stanc - 07-17-2015
LRRPF52 Wrote:Squad Automatic Rifleman slot is being looked at with the belt-fed LSAT. Magazine fed would be backwards at this point...Hey, I'm with you on that. However, I think it says something that the listed Task 2 is development of a 6.5mm CT carbine, but Task 3 is development of a 7.62mm CT machine gun, not 6.5mm.
More importantly, take a look at page 8 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2015smallarms/Libersat_SoldierWeaponsPanel.pdf
Quote:As part of the test and evaluation Platoon/Unit structure, they also had the new KAC M110K carbines in 7.62 NATO. When some of those guns went down, they pulled the Leupold Mark 6 scopes off, slapped them on the LMG LSAT, and used it in both the semi automatic mode, as well as automatic mode at long range to fill the DM role, with very good hit probability using M855A1 projectiles.I don't know how you can state that as a fact, when a 6.5mm CT LMG hasn't yet been built, let alone tested.
Hit probability would increase of course with 6.5mm.
But, let's assume you're right. How much would hit probability increase?
Lsat - LRRPF52 - 07-17-2015
Hit probability increases with higher BC because of wind and trajectory, and I can state it as fact because I watch it happen on a regular basis.
When guys show up to courses with 5.56 shooting Mk.262 or 69gr SMK's, next to guys with .308's shooting 168 and 175gr, next to 6.5 Grendel, hit probability is higher with the Grendel. Same with 75gr AMAX hand loads in the 5.56, which shouldn't be able to fit in mags. Hit probability with that load versus .308 is noticeable and very tangible.
With balanced recoil LMG's, the 6.5mm would really shine and open eyes.
That abortion concept they're showing on page 8 looks like a Barret M82/107 had a baby with a whale and a SCAR. Yuck! I don't know who got it in their heads that a magazine-fed weapon was ok for Squad Automatic Weapon, but they need re-training or re-assignment.