New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[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-p...on-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.

[Tony Williams]

Update on the Polymer ammunition. It's garbage, and HANKA's suspicions were spot-on.

Correction: PCP ammunition may be garbage, but the .50 cal MK323 Mod 0 from MAC LLC has been successfully undergoing independent tests in different machine guns and is in the process of getting qualified for use by the USMC. It is a more conservative design than the PCP, with a relatively large brass base, but still saves 23% of the overall cartridge weight.

[Tony Williams]

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.

The US Army's LSAT project (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) for a 5.56mm MG and ammo to be made as light as possible resulted in two parallel development tracks: for caseless telescoped and plastic-cased telescoped ammo. The pic below shows the caseless (red) and plastic-cased ammo belts next to the usual brass 5.56x45.



An HK info package on G-11 caseless ammo was bought in order to speed up development, but even so it has been problematic due to the host of problems which bedevil caseless rounds. Around 90% of the development has been on the plastic-cased variety. This seems to work reasonably well, but funding has been reduced to a trickle.

[stanc]

Guardsman26 wrote:

A lot of very interesting discussions are taking place about what the US Army's Caliber Configuration Study (CCS) means for industry. The US Army's Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) has helped focus the development, testing and evaluation of prospective new calibers for the Combat Lightweight Automatic weapon System (CLAWS) program by independently developing two rounds (discussed elsewhere on this forum). One is a 6.5 mm round designed to fit within the action length of 5.56 mm. The other is a 6.5 mm round designed to fit within the action length of 7.62 mm.

Only the second of these two rounds is cable of comfortably exceeding 7.62 x 51 mm NATO performance in a lighter package. But, and it's a big but, the smaller 6.5 mm round that fits within a 5.56 mm action length makes it very easy to upgrade legacy weapons with a new upper, rather than buying millions of new guns. As Tony will immediately point out, unless you exceed 7.62 mm performance, you will need to keep 7.62 mm weapons. However, since 7.62 mm weapons are likely to be replaced through the larger caliber Lightweight Dismounted Automatic Machine Gun (LDAM) program, we could see something like a .338 DM / Sniper weapons used for long range work as well as large caliber GPMGs. So matching 7.62 mm performance may be less of an issue than we originally thought.

The economic argument may therefore favour a smaller 6.5 mm round, although that is not my preference. The smaller round is essentially a militarised Grendel and still delivers excellent long-range performance.

What is incredible and what seemed impossible only a few years ago may well become a reality: this could mark the beginning of the end for 5.56 mm NATO. That is definitely a step forward in my book.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/m...g=5556.697

[Trooper]

The advantage of the 6.5mm (.260) and the 8.59mm (.338) have similar BC (.600) and SD. From what I have read, there is shift towards something heavier. I do like the idea of 6.5x45.

[Guardsman26]

Hey, Stan, thanks for quoting me! (I must be doing something right.)

My prediction is that we'll see a proper military spec lead-free 6.5 mm bullet developed for the Grendel 6.5 x 39 mm case and also for a necked-down 7.62 x 51 mm case. How this performs. Assuming it has a steel core and is mounted in a copper shoe (as per the RUAG / NAMMO 5.56 and 7.62 lead free designs) it would weigh around 7 grams or 115 grains. It may not quite match 7.62 mm exactly, but it could still deliver excellent 600 m plus performance and that may be enough.

Two important advantages of a lead-free round is that it would provide superior penetration of body armour than a regular lead core round. It would also be cheaper to manufacture. Assuming it could be designed to yaw reliably when penetrating soft tissue (like the RUAG / NAMMO lead free designs which move centre of gravity rearwards to allow this), the bullet would need need to fragment to be lethal like 5.56 mm M855. No Geneva / Hague Convention problems would speed up approval.

While the merits of a round that fits legacy weapons are hard to argue against, I still like the idea of an optimised case with growth potential that allows both tracer rounds to be fitted and an eventual move to polymer technology.

As the CCS gets underway, you gotta say hats off to Bill, Arne and Janne for setting the bar so high with the Grendel as is.

[stanc]

My prediction is that we'll see a proper military spec lead-free 6.5 mm bullet developed for the Grendel 6.5 x 39 mm case and also for a necked-down 7.62 x 51 mm case.

As in 6.5x47 Lapua?

While the merits of a round that fits legacy weapons are hard to argue against, I still like the idea of an optimised case with growth potential that allows both tracer rounds to be fitted and an eventual move to polymer technology.

Yes, the probable reduction in powder capacity with a polymer case does argue for a cartridge case longer than that of 6.5 Grendel.

It should be interesting to see what comes out of the CCS. Any word on when that study is to conclude?

[NugginFutz]

As in 6.5x47 Lapua?

Yes, the probable reduction in powder capacity with a polymer case does argue for a cartridge case longer than that of 6.5 Grendel.

It should be interesting to see what comes out of the CCS. Any word on when that study is to conclude?

THANK YOU. Finally, something really interesting to read...

[stanc]

6.5x43 GPC prototype, second from left, below.



Article: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/11/us...-calibres/

"...the US discovered that various potential enemies have been quietly enhancing their own small arms capabilities and are on the verge of achieving overmatch.

There has been no specific information on what the evolved threat is, but it appears that the Chinese and Russians are about to field improved ranges of weapons and ammunition."

Maybe there really is a 6.5 Grendelski???

[cory]

I'm assuming that 6.5x43mm GPC case is a 6.8 spc resized, correct? Anybody know what the case capacity would be for it?

[stanc]

I'm assuming that 6.5x43mm GPC case is a 6.8 spc resized, correct?

Nope. It may not be obvious in the photo, but the 6.5 GPC is essentially a "stretched" 6.5 Grendel. Same basic case, same diameter, just a few millimeters longer.