New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers

[stanc]

As always, Stan, great find. Schatz has been around ever since I joined the fray in late 2003. I seem to remember some of his early presentations were equally as enthusiastic but stumped for the 6.8 SPC and featured Roberts' gel tests. I bet you could dig up some of his earlier NDIA PowerPoints.

John, that was my recollection, too. However, it appears my memory may be faulty. I checked his past NDIA presentations and found one from 2008 that had only a single slide devoted to 6.8 SPC. And in 2011, he was fairly even-handed in covering 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011smallarms/W...Schatz.pdf

I agree with the need for a common, intermediate cartridge (6.5mm caliber suggests itself, but .250, .260, .270 is workable) for a family of squad weapons. Must be high BC.

Concur with high-BC requirement. But, although I once argued for a common caliber, I've since come to think that a two-caliber system is better. That's due in part to Paul pointing out the issue of combat endurance, which would suffer with a rifle/carbine cartridge significantly bulkier and heavier than 5.56 NATO.

Must have some kind of recoil mitigation ("constant recoil" seems the simplest). In my personal opinion, the 6.5 Grendel already has the highest amount of recoil acceptable for mass recruits.

Yeah. After shooting Greg's Grendels, which was a somewhat painful experience, I kinda wonder if it might have too much recoil for the average recruit. Of course, I was shooting left-handed for the first time in my life, which no doubt accounts at least in part for the unpleasantness. And, I'm also a long, long, looooong way from being the age of the typical recruit, which might possibly be another factor. :eek:

I agree with .338 for a family of support weapons (sniper and heavy-er MGs).

Sniper rifle, okay. Machine gun, I question. The .338 just doesn't have the anti-materiel capability of the .50 caliber. It seems to me that if more range is desired for anti-personnel use than could be delivered by a 6.Xmm machine gun, it would be better in a caliber/cartridge smaller and lighter than either .338 Lapua or .338 Norma. Soldiers could carry only half as much linked .338 ammo as 7.62 NATO, and that (IMO) would be too great of a loss in combat endurance of foot-mobile infantry.

I would add the need for a laser-ranged, airburst, 40mm "Carl Gustav"-type launcher whose grenades have pointy, high BC nose-cones.

I wonder if low-velocity 40mm grenades would benefit from a streamlined nose?

I boil down infantry combat to an exercise in getting at infantry ensconced behind cover. Laser-ranged air-burst, if they can make it affordable and rugged, is the real game-changer here.

Oh, nooooo. Not another "game changer." That term bugs me, because rarely does anything actually change the game. :p

Anyway, as LR hinted, that presentation is kind of an eye-roller for our particular community who seems to have "got it" for quite some time now.

Good for Schatz and I hope he keeps up the good work and influences the direction of small arms development in the direction it has long needed to go.

Yes, indeed. I was a bit surprised at the number of intermediate caliber studies shown on page 18. But, I was aware of the "industry programs" on page 20, and had heard of the 6.5x43 Lapua -- which seems to be a "stretched" 6.5 Grendel -- a year or two ago.