New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[joker31]

You can't take away suppressive fire capability from dismounts or even mounted vehicles and replace it with HE warheads from mortars or recoilless rifles. They work together well. There needs to be return fire capability from belt-feds while tube-based HE warhead weapons are dialed in if appropriate.

RPG's are very hard on the user and anyone around them if we're talking about over pressure. When you light off an RPG, it sounds like a grenade went off at the firer's position. It is nothing like the movies. Once the trigger is pulled, there is a piercing explosion and impact happens almost immediately. The fins are very large as well, and a near miss can equal a hit on anyone within the radius of the fins. A guy in my Battalion lost his legs that way in OIF1, and the warhead killed another.

Yep, I seen the fins shred the sheet metal roof on my hut when one failed to go off. EOD said the dumb asses disconnected the impact and the distance fuses.

[BluntForceTrauma]

And BTW, if you're really concerned about tanks, the 84mm HEAT rounds are far more capable of defeating armor, than the 25mm and 40mm grenades can ever hope of being, so you may wish to re-evaluate.

No, no, KEEP the 84mm CG for tanks and big stuff but ADD a new 40mm High Velocity, Recoilless, Shoulder-Fired, Laser-Ranged, Air-Burst, Grenade Launcher (HVRSFLRABGL for short ). Something like, oh, the external diameter of the Russian RPG launcher but firing cartridge-type grenades. Making the caliber 40mm instead of 84mm allows one to carry more rounds. This would replace things like the M203 and would be just as ubiquitous in the squad.

As LR noted, while your ARs and LMGs are suppressing and pinning down the enemy, your grenadier is lazing the range for a close proximity air-burst.

John

[joker31]

The 203 has been replaced already with an awesome launcher and the 40mm Grenade does not equal a 40mm CG round, by any stretch of the imagination. The 84mmCG is good because there are subcaliber rounds that can be fired, either through Flechets, Sabots or other means. Would love to see a metal storm type weapon for anti-vehicle or anti mortar use. The CIWS was used in Iraq a bunch, never saw it in Afg. I did get to shoot a lot of foreign stuff, like the FAMAS and the polish Beryl, PS90's and even a Tavor in full auto. I still get a smile when I remember shooting the Javelin though, seeing that thing just take off was awesome, The Line charges the Marines used were awesome too. Watched a gunner shoot a grenade out of the air like a clay pigeon was another good moment. a younger (14-16yo) talib throw the grenade as we were going by (they tried to hit the turrets like basketball hoops) our gunners with 50's had to point muzzles up in towns so they were given Benelli shotguns for force protection in addition to the M4 they had in a rack in the turret. The bad guys in Iraq were using parachute grenades to hit turrets so our gunners had shotguns. I was a T/C in a vehicle when I saw the talib pop out ahead and throw it, immediately, it was shot out of the air and our gunner (with a 240B) hit the Talib....was like a blocked shot in an NBA game.... Seems crazy now but at the time it was just an everyday thing.

Hanka, the scenario sounds good but the whole fine motor skill goes out the window when the bullets fly, my first firefight was over in 30min and I didnt remeber firing a shot but was down 4 magazines when I checked for expend report... I think the Air burst thing needs refinement, the Marines 6pack works well enough.

[LRRPF52]

RPG warheads that are no joke are the thermobaric versions. The RPG-29 will smoke your bags lights out before you know what happened. It will reduce buildings to rubble in a flash, literally. Effective range is significantly reduced though, due to warhead payload and drag, since it is what it is.

A lot of them were transferred to Hezbollah and Syria, and have been used to take out Abrams. They are any combatant's nightmare if you think about what happens when a thermobaric warhead does its thing. I would list several examples, but I won't since you would all recognize them immediately, then say, "You mean _ _ _ was a thermobaric charge?"

One of the most effective small elements is the organization of 3-man teams using a mix of SVD's, PKM's, and RPG's. 3 teams composed of these weapons can wreak havoc on a significantly larger force, and have done so from Chechnya to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Joker31 mentioned training of the Taliban, and that they aren't stupid. If you know the history of the region, the Mujaheddin received better training in how to run an insurgency, to include better small unit tactics training than 99% of any US infantry soldier will ever receive if big Army keeps doing what they do.

That program was run and really envisioned largely by a former enlisted SF NCO turned SF officer, who went to work for the CIA in their ill-advised arming and training of the Muj in the Soviet-Afghan War of 1979-1989. They ran training camps in the Federally Administered Tribal Regions with the Pakistani ISI supervision, and turned on a major "kill Russians" program, which back-fired on us with 9/11 in more ways than one.

The improvised explosives and mines courses that were taught to them were completely gloves off, as were the small unit tactics and UW logistics networking. I have been able to interview several Soviet Afghan War vets to hear what it was like on the receiving end of the EFP's and booster grenades, and things really changed for the Russians once this UW program went into effect.

Soviet Spetsnaz GRU units were operationally tasked with interdicting the CIA's clandestine logistics network, as well as taking out Mujaheddin insurgents, but there wasn't much they could do once this integrated UW force was turned loose with the training and equipment they had, especially including the Stinger MANPADS. I have a book about it entirely in Russian that is one of the best books on the Afghan-Soviet War you will ever find, specifically written for the GRU Spetsnaz Veterans. They were hell-bent on just proving that the US was providing Stingers to them, and took great pride in the recovery of one of the used launchers in its case. The CIA did a one-for-one rule where if Mr. Muj wanted to receive another missile, he had to bring the used one back so it wouldn't end up sold on the black market.



As to calibers and how they were structured across the UW force, the former SF NCO/officer was very instrumental in configuring it, and he was adamant about stopping the Lee Enfield rifles from being proliferated anymore (original CIA program was to just annoy the Russians), and demanded that Central Asian Bureau adopt a modern small arms mix of AKM's, heavy machine guns, RPG's, and anti-aircraft weapons. There were some RPD's (Type 56 Chinese copies), and other small arms sourced from mainly China and the Middle East, but the combined mix of weaponry and training was really more than the Russians could deal with.

[joker31]

When HIND gunners DSHK's barrels got overheated, they would flip the lever and kick them out and put a new one on, we were still getting shot at by those barrels when I was there, they even had a 7.62x54R version of the AK with a 14" Barrel and an underfolding stock that they were using for punching through our body armor. I captured one of them from a guy who was tried to outrun me up a mountain, the team was yelling, just shoot him, I was saying no, ill get him, the sniper was holding the scope on him all the way up until I tackled him...He tried to shoot me with it and he forgot to chamber a round in it..... I beat his ass with it, then dragged him down the side of the mountain by his feet. little bastard climbed like a billy goat, I had to redeem myself because one got away a couple days earlier, He climbed like one of those european free running Monkeymen.

[stanc]

Id be perfectly comfortable having a Team with the 6.5G M4's and a CG and a M27 IAR in 6.5G with the 100rnd drums I seen in Afghanistan (Not Beta mags, think they were Xmags) in the Iraq type terrain, I'd have to see in Afghanistan... The Army needs the same thing because of the reduction in size.

A Grendel IAR should certainly be much easier and far less costly to develop than a belt-fed LMG. I'd think creation of a 6.5G IAR demonstration platform ought to be within the realm of not only Alexander Arms, but just about any Grendel shooter who has a select-fire lower receiver and 25-rd magazines.

If what you saw is the X-15 drum, capacity is only 50 rounds. The X-15 drum imposes a substantial weight penalty. Empty, it's about 2 lbs. That's heavier than the 50 rounds of 5.56 ammo it holds. That would severely impact the quantity of ammo the automatic rifleman can carry. 800 rds in links = 400 rds in X-15 drums.

[video=youtube;nuOT4sI-msk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuOT4sI-msk[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuOT4sI-msk

[joker31]

Mybe it wasn't the X15, the one I saw was plastic and clear, I was told it held 100 rounds but maybe they were wrong, it was a Captain of a Cav unit that told me about the particulars of the system, I saw it but never got to play with it. I did see a few AA12's also but didnt get to play with them either, one was being used for State dept security in a Bazaar during a VIP walk through, I was ducking cameras at the time and getting cards from the writers to have them redact me out. I did however see a SCAR in 6.8, which I didn't think existed at the time, even seen a 416 style HK upper on an M4 lower, which I thought wouldn't work. Everyone liked to point out stuff to me because I was previously a part of a WIT Team (Weapons intelligence Team) but most of that was explosive based including collecting brass headstamps and trace elements and cataloging techniques so we could tell how many bomb makers there were and how well trained they were etc... I was bored with that because they were talking court appearances and stuff like that so contractors were brought in (To preserve our identities) I am really interested in the Tavor myself and took a helo ride to get to shoot one, It was a real good time. I really think I may end up buying one soon. I worked around a lot of vehicles a lot and my interest is in small rifles but I primarily fought in long distance combat and was only engaged in a vehicle only once or twice. I think something like a 6.5 IAR would work well because the DMR and the Auto gunner are the same guy (Sexist I know but I only fought with guys 90% of the time but my partner was a female in everywhere else)
I have never fired a Grendel in Burst or Full auto so I'm not sure how it would act (Heat issues, feeding issues etc) but I can tell you that I'm yet to find a 26 round mag to feed correctly 100% of the time. BTW... The military only pays for development if they buy the product most of the time, they have gotten away from funding everyone's ideas, but DARPA will fund some things and most large contract companies have think tank divisions.

[stanc]

Mybe it wasn't the X15, the one I saw was plastic and clear, I was told it held 100 rounds...

The only mag I can think of which seems to fit that description is the MWG 90-rounder.

[video=youtube;JUtRBV8VBaY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUtRBV8VBaY[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUtRBV8VBaY

I think something like a 6.5 IAR would work well because the DMR and the Auto gunner are the same guy...
I have never fired a Grendel in Burst or Full auto so I'm not sure how it would act (Heat issues, feeding issues etc) but I can tell you that I'm yet to find a 26 round mag to feed correctly 100% of the time.

Yes, I think combining DMR and IAR in the same gun/shooter might be a good way to go.

Grendel magazine reliability appears to be inconsistent. Some people report problems, while other individuals claim flawless functioning. Regardless, that's the only hi-cap mag available if somebody wants to build and demonstrate a 6.5G IAR.

Forum member "Variable" shoots 6.5G full-auto. IIRC, he's never reported any issues. A few years ago, he wanted to make a Grendelized Colt LMG, but was unable to get a super-heavy 6.5G barrel.

[video=youtube;tLX2zauiI38]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLX2zauiI38[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLX2zauiI38

[Tony Williams]

Yes, I think combining DMR and IAR in the same gun/shooter might be a good way to go.

Some of the suggestions emerging in this thread - it's great to get such info, guys, keep it coming - remind me of this: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/future%2...20arms.htm

[joker31]

I have worked with some of the best in the business and I can tell you, if you can get a reliable system thats 10-15% less effective, it doesnt matter, it will have to be a huge difference to make the change worth it. The guys I worked with would run battle drills to build muscle memory for hours, I have been on missions that were mocked up on a sound stage type building where each guy knew how many steps he would take to each point and how many stairs there were in each portion of the building etc, so yes things are very hard to change because they are drilled into your body, stuff like malfunctions are felt before they are seen, so all of this will have to be re-learned and retrained so, any change in platform is out of the question for some commands.

I think the changes need to happen to the sidearm first because the beretta is a decent weapon but there are others out the that are more effective and require less training, in my command everyone had a pistol, I think anyone who goes outside the wire should have one and the Army brass are starting to see it that way too. After the crap that went on with the Jessica Lynch thing and countless others where capture was a possibility the pistol became a defensive weapon and the rifle was an offensive weapon by definition after the reports came out. Thats when the big push for pistols came out.

[joker31]

M27 question: Anyone know where these pictures of chopped rear sights are coming from for the IAR? I only have seen 2 sights, 1 is the Diopter sight (Drum) and the other is the Knights lollypop sight, I keep seeing a sight thats cut off on the left side, kinda weird looking.

[montana]

A lot of great perspectives and info here guys, "eye opening". A lot has changed since I was a pup.

[stanc]

I have worked with some of the best in the business and I can tell you, if you can get a reliable system thats 10-15% less effective, it doesnt matter, it will have to be a huge difference to make the change worth it. The guys I worked with would run battle drills to build muscle memory for hours, I have been on missions that were mocked up on a sound stage type building where each guy knew how many steps he would take to each point and how many stairs there were in each portion of the building etc, so yes things are very hard to change because they are drilled into your body, stuff like malfunctions are felt before they are seen, so all of this will have to be re-learned and retrained so, any change in platform is out of the question for some commands.

Would that also apply to a change in size? The cartridges being developed by USAMU and other entities are too long to fit the M4 mag length. Could a new carbine that's a bit larger than the M4, but otherwise identical, be acceptable? I'm thinking something like the DPMS GII (bottom gun in photo).



Of course, such "general purpose cartridges" will need magazines substantially larger than for 5.56mm, and weight of loaded 30-rd mags will be ~50% heavier.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Enjoyed your article Tony. Reading the U.S. list of requirements makes the 6.5 Grendel face-palmingly obvious to me! I don't favor a 6.5x45 because I think the 6.5x39 Grendel is already at the top range of recoil for mass recruits and I like that it fits in the existing AR series and, in general, the more compact the better.

You also made a strong argument for a bullpup; when we get a helical tube-magazine that makes it possible to go prone without a clumsy box magazine under one's armpit, I'm onboard!

John

[stanc]

Thought this might be of interest to the group:

Now with CLAWS and LDAM everything has changed again. For a long time, the US Army was obtuse in its refusal to consider alternate calibers. The increasing re-adoption of 7.62mm and the serious issues with 5.56mm M855A1 EPR have changed that. ARDEC seems to be of the view that 5.56mm has reached its maximum development potential. This is good news.

NATO seems to be on a critical path to replacing its small arms between 2020 and 2025, so I am not expecting any decision on a new caliber within the next 2-3 years. That said, the work done by the US Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning to develop custom ammunition types in 6.5mm and 6.8mm independently validates what Tony, ARDEC and every other caliber study over the last 100 years has recommended: If you want lead free ammo, 6.8mm is right way to go. If you want lead ammo, then 6.5mm will suffice. Both rounds comfortably exceed 7.62mm NATO range and retained energy performance figures when fired from guns with same length barrels. Interestingly, US AMU stipulates that you need a case with a capacity of 40 grains of water to propel a 7g or 8g projectile so that it outperforms 7.62mm to 1,000 metres.

Having seen test results, a 7g or 8g bullet in 6.5mm or 6.8mm can do everything a 7.62mm bullet can do, but shoots flatter, further, and faster with less wind drift and less recoil. The improvement in hit probability versus 7.62mm is astonishing. Such a round could easily be fielded in rifles and machine guns at squad level and would be a better solution than both 5.56mm and 7.62mm. There is no doubt in my mind about this. Forget the the weight argument (even though a 6.8 x 45 mm cartridge would only weigh 17-18 g) this is all about shooting effectiveness.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/m...sg=5074.20

[BluntForceTrauma]

If you want lead free ammo, 6.8mm is right way to go. If you want lead ammo, then 6.5mm will suffice.

First, I presume they're talking about a high BC 6.8. Everyone knows any 6.8 under about 120 grains is a non-starter. Second, Stan, do you happen to know what he means by this, or do I need to dig up the source?

so that it outperforms 7.62mm to 1,000 metres.

Again, arbitrary. Being an iconoclast, I ask "Why?" They answer, "Uh, because that's what the .308 does." "Why?" "Uh, because that's what the .30-06 did." "Why?" "Uh, because we need massed rifle volley fire at 2000 yards. Duh!"

Put your development money into long-range, air-burst grenades instead of the last war. Or, should I say, the wars of the previous century.

John

[stanc]

First, I presume they're talking about a high BC 6.8. Everyone knows any 6.8 under about 120 grains is a non-starter. Second, Stan, do you happen to know what he means by this, or do I need to dig up the source?

John, I do know. He does not mean 6.8 SPC. Think something like Cris Murray's 7x46 UIAC, except with high-BC .277" bullet. The consensus on Tony's MG&A forum is that lead-free .264" bullets probably won't be heavy enough to provide acceptable terminal effects.


.276 Pedersen, .270 British, 7x43 British, 7.62x51 NATO, 7x46 UIAC, 6.5x38 Grendel

Again, arbitrary. Being an iconoclast, I ask "Why?" They answer, "Uh, because that's what the .308 does."

You're correct as to the why, but I disagree that it's arbitrary. In the absence of information to the contrary, I think it is reasonable to expect the military will want at least 7.62 performance in a replacement for that round, and that's been the prevailing view of GPC proponents.

I also thought that way, but the CLAWS and LDAM programs made me re-evaluate the issue. With LDAM seeking a replacement for 7.62 NATO as the MMG caliber, I now think that it may not be necessary to match 7.62 performance in a new cartridge for carbines, DMRs, and LMGs.

IMO, it all depends on what performance the military decides they want, and what weight penalties they're willing to accept.

Put your development money into long-range, air-burst grenades instead of the last war. Or, should I say, the wars of the previous century.

The military is putting money into airburst grenades. But, as LRRPF52 noted, ABGLs can't replace rifles and machine guns (at least, at this stage), so some development efforts will have to also go into conventional bullet-firing weapons.

[nincomp]

John, you can see where Stan came up with the larger case than the current 6.8's buried in the quote from Guardsman26's: " Interestingly, US AMU stipulates that you need a case with a capacity of 40 grains of water to propel a 7g or 8g projectile so that it outperforms 7.62mm to 1,000 metres."

Although I am usually suspect of round numbers like "1,000 meters," it turns out that the range of the 7.62x54 weapons (like the PKM) is close to that. Joker31 wanted an MMG that would at least out shoot the PKM. The cartridges mentioned above should at least match the range of a PKM.

I do not want to start the definition wars again, so there would be a relatively lightweight MG for our dismounted troops that would match the range of the opposing 7.62x54 ones.

Although I may be misreading Joker's post, it seems that our 7.62x51 weapons do not match the 7.62x54's. I would imagine that this is why such things as the .338 Norma Mag have been mentioned. Whatever is used, I hope that it will not be hobbled by short ogive projectiles (like the 5.56, 7.62N, and even to some extent, the 338 LM).

[BluntForceTrauma]

propel a 7g or 8g projectile so that it outperforms 7.62mm to 1,000 metros. . . . The cartridges mentioned above should at least match the range of a PKM.

7grams is 108grains and 8g is 123gr. The 6.5 Grendel ALREADY matches the "range" — the external ballistics — of the PKM. The question is whether the terminal performance of its 123gr bullet is acceptable relative to the PKM's 147gr bullet. And that terminal "acceptability" is somewhat arbitrary.

I'm comfortable with a 65G LMG having 1452 rounds for the same weight as a PKM's 1000 rounds. I say this because the external ballistics are a match and because I think, terminally, a 6.5mm 123gr in the head is gonna ruin your day almost as much as a 7.62mm 147gr in the head.

John

[stanc]

Although I may be misreading Joker's post, it seems that our 7.62x51 weapons do not match the 7.62x54's.

Other people have said this, too. I don't know on what this claim is based.

Muzzle velocities of 7.62x51 and 7.62x54R are both ~2800 fps.

147gr M80 Ball has a 0.397-0.418 BC, according to the sources I checked a few years ago when running ballistics tables.

148gr LPS Ball has a 0.377 BC, according to http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo025.htm

If that data is correct, our M240 should outrange the enemy's PKM.