Next US Military Rifle Cartridge: 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC Rem, or back to 7.62 NATO?

[Linstrum]

I was just looking up the characteristics of the recently developed Remington 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge and I like it a lot. Many rifles designed for the 5.56 NATO will handle it, making it attractive to boost a rifle's effectiveness to what is now required for the longer ranges and/or greater penetration like we have a need for in the Middle East. The good old M14 has also come out of mothballs and is being revamped for use for long range open land non-jungle warfare.

If the United States Military goes for a new cartridge to replace the 5.56 NATO for the ordinary ground pounder soldier, what do you think they will choose - the fat and stubby 6.5 mm Grendel based on the PPC, the more powerful 6.8 SPC based on the .30 Remington, or make a full return to the 7.62 NATO/M14? I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd place my bet on the 6.8 mm Special Purpose Cartridge since it seems to be the best compromise for greater bullet energy and increased range yet still be small enough for the over-worked under appreciated ground pounder to still carry more rounds of ammo than if the 7.62 NATO were re-employed. For a physical appearance comparison of the 6.8mm or .277 caliber cartridge with the 5.56 NATO, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

Ruger now offers their Mini-14 chambered in this cartridge, hopefully ammunition and brass won't be difficult to find for those who choose this chambering. However, new cartridges - some darned good ones, too - come and go. When was the last time we heard anything about the Shooting Times Westerner series?


rl977

[7br]

I do not have any experience with the grendel, but I do shoot the 6.8. I have no idea what it would be like in full auto, but is great in semi auto. I do not think the 7.62 will become the standard round for the average foot soldier. I do think it will continue on in specialized sniping roles even if one of the other two cartridges replaces the 5.56. Another interesting question is whether the m14 will ever truly die. There was a decent write up in the American Rifleman on the latest iteration of the M14 with another story about the SCAR in 7.62.

[Linstrum]

Hi, 7br, where do you get the brass for your 6.8? And if I may be so nosy, what semi-auto do you shoot it in, and how is it accuracy-wise?

Thanks!


rl979

[GabbyM]

I like the charts and numbers on the 6.8SPC however. I’m still a 5.56mm fan.
IMHO 5.56mm NATO round isn't going anywhere. Especially in the currently deployed rifles. All you have to do now to get a long range rifle back in your hands is to put the carbine length 20” barrel back on the rifles in place of that submachine gun stub on the M4. Then better performing ammo than M855. Which they have in inventory now from what I gather.

If the Army is going to change ammo they need to do so with a new rifle. Several of which they play around with.

One big thing the 5.56mm NATO has going for it that you hear little about is it’s freakishly long bore life. I’ve never heard any numbers for the 6.8SPC so perhaps it’s good as well. I also don’t know how the 6.8SPC does with barrel heat up in general. One of the huge advantages my Heavy M700 223 Rem varmint rig has over my 243’s is the 223 can shoot eight rounds out before barrel heat mirage distorts my sight picture to where you can’t hit a prairie dog. With a 243 you get three shots. Which is barely enough to walk in your rounds. That’s an extreme example as a 243 would be hopelessly frustrating to field in a military role. Pretty hard to match the useful service life of either 7.62 or 5.56 NATO. Which is over twenty thousand rounds.

A friend of mine worked the Korean DMZ in electronic warfare. Checking sensors set up to detect heavy movement and tunneling. Told me he slept with two cans of 5.56mm beside him and left his boots on. SHTF you get up grab your coat and kit then head out the tent door and what you have has to last all night or more probably the rest of your life. Those cans of 5.56mm hold 840 rounds each in stripper clips plus you have your mags loaded. If you read up on some of the battles of the Korean War it’s easy to see why a soldier would like almost 2,000 rounds for his rifle. With a good M16 that still has an 18 or 20 inch barrel on it you can fill a human silhouette target at 600 meters all day long. What’s not to like.

It wouldn’t hurt my feeling to see the Army field something like the 6.8SPC but I really don’t see much need for it. Everything I’ve read is they need a better performing round for the short M4 barrels. Well just put rifle barrels back on the M16 instead of trying to make a SMG that shoots like a rifle.

[Linstrum]

Hi, GabbyM, thanks for the insight into the benefits of the 5.56, I hadn't considered barrel life. As you say, that is freakishly long for something that scoots out the snout at ~3000-3100 fps! I guess chrome plating helps a lot. I wondered what the deal was when they shortened the barrels on a rifle that does not have a lot of reserve left to begin with. I guess close quarters combat in built up areas need the shorter barrels, but outdoors where your opponent is barely visible you gotta have every inch to get the job done right!


rl980

[MtGun44]

Not really going to change. 7.62 guns will be added to the mix to reach out when needed,
but for many situations the ammo wt issue is critical. If you get into a serious firefight with
only the ammo you carried in, you can't stand the ammo wt of .30 cal. Std load went from
160 rds to 240 rds (IIRC) when they went from 7.62 NATO to 5.56. Special heavy bullet
ammo M262 Mod1 is working for longer range Designated Marksmen rifles in 5.56mm.
The guys are already carrying 100 lbs of gear, cannot stand much heavier ammo. They
can share supporting the one or two 7.62 guns in a unit, but not everyone can carry the
heavy ammo.

Bill

[NickSS]

The 6.8 spc and the grendel version are both very similar to the 280 britixh round that was a contender for the nato round back in the 50s. In fact it was only due to the US pushing for the 7.62 x51 that NATO adopted it mostly because we dug out heals in and forced the rest of NATO to adopt it. The we got into a shooting war and found the M14 was too heavy and long for jungle warfair and adopted the M 16. Now we find that our little short barreled handy Jungle carbine is not so good at longer ranges as the old 7.62mm rifle was. What a surprise that is (not). My guess is that they will keep the 5.56 round give more guys rifles with longer barrels and use the new loads with 77 gr bullets to do their long range shooting. They will not adopt a new cartridge unless someone develops a cheaper round like a caseless one. So lets be realistic we have the whole world using 22 cal rifles and now we are going to change? Not likely.

[Boz330]

Not really going to change. 7.62 guns will be added to the mix to reach out when needed,
but for many situations the ammo wt issue is critical. If you get into a serious firefight with
only the ammo you carried in, you can't stand the ammo wt of .30 cal. Std load went from
160 rds to 240 rds (IIRC) when they went from 7.62 NATO to 5.56. Special heavy bullet
ammo M262 Mod1 is working for longer range Designated Marksmen rifles in 5.56mm.
The guys are already carrying 100 lbs of gear, cannot stand much heavier ammo. They
can share supporting the one or two 7.62 guns in a unit, but not everyone can carry the
heavy ammo.

Bill

I was in during the change over and I don't remember the exact numbers but I thought that it was more than that. Like double the number of rounds or more. Funny thing was that all of the M-16s were going to Nam and I never qualified with anything but the M-14 even though it was pretty much not being used.

Bob

[spqrzilla]

I don't see any new service rifle cartridge for at least a decade. And probably the answer will be none of the above listed.

[Blammer]

logistics.

wars are fought and won on logistics.

you don't field two types of ammo that are similar and make a "change" in a war zone.

right now, with a two front war we are not about to change anything.

[mustanggt]

Didn't they make the change from 7.62 to 5.56 early in Vietnam? I know I've read and seen pictures of troops carrying the M14. It was a steep learning curve changing rifles as well as calibers too eh? Hindsight being 20-20 not the best decision they could have made right?

[Multigunner]

Some South American countries that adopted non US manufactured rifles had a lot of US aid M16 rifles still in stock. They weren't much interested in refurbishing these or keeping two very different rifles in service so they began modifying some as officers PDWs by replacing the beat up issue stocks and handguards with locally made hardwood pieces proportioned for maximum compactness, and shortened barrels to something like 12 ".
There had been a string of assasinations of their officers so company armorers made these little carbines with great attention to detail and presented them to the officers as a sign of respect. These were carried in cars mainly but also in the field.
The stock sets of the ones I saw photos of were made from Chocolate Tiger Wood (no relation to the pro golfer).

Should the US adopt a new cartridge its likely they would continue to issue the most worn and long in the tooth M16s in 5.56 as PDWs for non combat support troops and MPs and other security personel. The unaltered rifles would also still be useful as training rifles, using up older 5.56 ammo on the range so it doesn't go to waste.

The 6.8 is very close balistically to several pre WW2 experimental reduced power infantry rifle cartridges like the .276 Pederson and the .280 British of their 50's assault rifle trials. The prototype FAL was also chambered for a short cased 7mm.
Everything old is new again.

[MtGun44]

They are using both the M14 and the M4/M16 now in both battlefields. I know a few
Army officers that have been over to both sandboxes and we have discussed their
experiences. Interestling, one carried the M14 ("Hey, I was in charge and I'm a gun
guy and I wanted it.") and he had also used the M4 on a previous deployment. I asked
about the effectiveness. His comment was "Shoot them in the middle, they fall down."
"No difference?" "Not particularly obvious at short ranges." Another officer with similar
experience who was there, too, agreed.

I asked "What about getting inside of cars?" They said "Neither will reliably get inside
a car. If you need to get inside a car, use Ma Deuce. Ma Deuce WILL get inside a car."

Bill

[Combat Diver]

The 5.56 is going to stay for quite awhile. DOD won't change from the M16/M4 series until there is a drastic imporvement in performance/innovation. The M14 won't be around much longer after Afghanistan. Why, no parts and no trained armorers. I carried a National Match M14 in Iraq in 04 and then used the same rifle out to 1000yds at the All Army Matches in 06'. They are worn out and can not be sustained. A M16 DMR would be better to issue to the troops. Most combat takes place well within 300meters. Why, because you can not see and identify targets with the naked eye past that distance. Engaging outside of that allows for fire and manuvear. For farther shooting that's why there is a mix of belt fed machine guns and sniper/DMRs. The M4 is capable of shooting out to 600 if the shooter is capable, most aren't.

Really I would like to see the 6.8 SPC get adopted but politics have killed it again. We devoloped it in 5th SFGA along with AMU and Remington. Our commanders at the time supported us in the effort. Just my two cents on this.

CD

[bruce drake]

We are moving to a Partition style bullet for our ARs. Nasty round. Good on people and cars. A buddy of mine was the Engineer in Charge of developing the bullet at Ft. Benning.

Here's a press release from Picatiny Arsenal where they are making the new bullet for us.

Bruce

Army begins shipping improved 5.56mm cartridge


PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. (June 23, 2010) -- The Army announced today it has begun shipping its new 5.56mm cartridge, the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, to support warfighters in Afghanistan.

The new M855A1 round is sometimes referred to as "green ammo."

The new round replaces the current M855 5.56mm cartridge that has been used by U.S. troops since the early 1980s.

The M855A1 resulted in a number of significant enhancements not found in the current round, officials said. They explained these include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity.

During testing, the M855A1 performed better than current 7.62mm ball ammunition against certain types of targets, blurring the performance differences that previously separated the two rounds.

The projectile incorporates these improvements without adding weight or requiring additional training.

According to Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program's product manager, the projectile is "the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced."

Woods said its fielding represents the most significant advancement in general purpose small caliber ammunition in decades.

The Enhanced Performance Round contains an environmentally-friendly projectile that eliminates up to 2,000 tons of lead from the manufacturing process each year in direct support of Army commitment to environmental stewardship.

Woods said the effort is a clear example of how "greening" a previously hazardous material can also provide extremely beneficial performance improvements.

Picatinny Arsenal's Project Manager for Maneuver Ammunition Systems manages the M855A1 program.

Project Manager Chris Grassano called the fielding "the culmination of an Army enterprise effort by a number of organizations, particularly the Army Research Laboratory, Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Program Executive Office for Ammunition and the Joint Munitions Command.

"The Army utilized advanced science, modeling and analysis to produce the best 5.56mm round possible for the warfighter," he said.

The M855A1 is tailored for use in the M-4 weapon system but also improves the performance of the M-16 and M-249 families of weapons.

A true general-purpose round, the M855A1 exceeds the performance of the current M855 against the many different types of targets likely to be encountered in combat.

Prior to initial production, the EPR underwent vigorous testing. Official qualification of the round consisted of a series of side-by-side tests with the current M855.

Overall, the Army fired more than 1 million rounds to ensure the new cartridge met or exceeded all expectations. The M855A1 is without question the most thoroughly tested small caliber round ever fielded, Woods said.

The Army has recently completed the Limited Rate Initial Production phase for the M855A1 and is beginning the follow-on full rate production phase where plans are to procure more than 200 millions rounds over the next 12-15 months.

The M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round is the first environmentally-friendly bullet resulting from a larger "greening" effort across the Army's Small Caliber Ammunition programs. Other greening efforts include 5.56mm tracer, 7.62mm ball and green primers.

Soldiers in Afghanistan will begin using the new, improved round this summer.http://castboolits.gunloads.com/imagehosting/thum_5254d6cbb9347052.jpg (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=50)

[johndeeboy4]

HOWDY IED LIKE TOO SEE them go to the 6.8 spc. But i still love my 5.56

[JIMinPHX]

Geeze...1/2 way between a .223 & a 7.62x39...brilliant! :roll:

I never understood why the 5.56 won out over the Lee Navy round in the first place. The Lee Navy seemed about perfect to me.

[j20owner]

Wasn't the Lee Navy some time around 1900? Maybe I'm thinking about something else.

Nope, Lee Navy 1895 Wiki knows all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Lee_Navy)

[AZ-Stew]

Bruce,

No offense intended, but that announcement is a lot of advertising hype, with no explanation of the engineering or composition of the bullet. It looks like someone cut off the nose of a Barnes 50gr Varmint Grenade and stuffed in the tip of a Remington Bronze Point bullet. Whattyaknow about the innards? If you're not allowed to say, I understand completely. Does it have the ability to penetrate moderate barriers, as does a .30 (7.62) round? Details! Details!

Regards,

Stew

[Linstrum]

In the 1920s and 1930s the Garand was originally supposed to be in a smaller cartridge that I believe was called the .276 Pedersen. Pedersen, who invented the Pedersen Device for the Springfield, worked with John C. Garand by designing the cartridge that the Garand was supposd to be chambered in after Garand's rifle design was selected over his. The .276 was nixed by Gen. Douglas MacArthur in favor of the .30-06.


rl981

[Linstrum]

Hi, Bruce, thanks for posting the info and photo for the improved 5.56 cartridge, that is pretty interesting!


rl982

[82nd airborne]

They are using both the M14 and the M4/M16 now in both battlefields. I know a few
Army officers that have been over to both sandboxes and we have discussed their
experiences. Interestling, one carried the M14 ("Hey, I was in charge and I'm a gun
guy and I wanted it.") and he had also used the M4 on a previous deployment. I asked
about the effectiveness. His comment was "Shoot them in the middle, they fall down."
"No difference?" "Not particularly obvious at short ranges." Another officer with similar
experience who was there, too, agreed.

I asked "What about getting inside of cars?" They said "Neither will reliably get inside
a car. If you need to get inside a car, use Ma Deuce. Ma Deuce WILL get inside a car."

Bill

Im not trying to be abrasive in the least, but if an officer shoots someone, he has failed his job miserably, unless being overrun. They should be commanding troops. None of the many officers I ever served under fired in combat. If they start shooting, no one is coordinating the attack/counter attack. They were also not allowed to field SDM rifles as it would take a valuable recource away from a soldier who has has milions spent on his training. Once again, not trying to nitpick, just throwing around some technical...not sure what word follows there.

As for the 6.8,
Not really a good military round. And Im not a 6.8 hater, I build them and like them alot. But, You can carry only half the ammo load of 5.56, It is prone to breaking bolts on a rig that is shot ALOT, your highest capacity mag is 20rds, and those can be glitchy when dirty. Also, the armoror would have a tough job keeping everything separate. In adition to that, we used 75g hornady TAP's alot, they are very very effective. At times when we ran out, we used 62gr, which was better than 55's but still didnt hold a candle to the TAP ammo. We also tried the Remington 55 gr hollow points, yup the kind for varmint hunting. They were not as good as the tap's but better than ball. When you are carrying in excess of 100lbs in 130 degree heat, that little extra weight means alot, and you dont want to leave your water at home to make room for ammo.
I would rather have 450-500 rounds of 75g taps on me than 250 rounds of 6.8 in almost any combat situation.
Tumbling is not something you can rely on.

M14 is a good weapon, but is actually more prone to malfunction than the M4. I know Ill catch flak for that one, but Ive seen it, and not from guys that neglect their weapons. It is also dang hard to clear a room with an m14 and a 10x leopould, that is why the SDM is in a strategic location when on foot patrol, op, or any other operation.

When you get ambushed, and the fastest way out is to lay down as much suppressive fire as you can to overwhelm the enemy, Id rather have a bunch of 30rd mags than the same number of 15-20 round mags, no matter the amount of muzzle energy.

Also, an M4A1 would be darn hard to control when the lever is swung all the way around and is pointing back at you. Not to mention, they burn through a 30 real quick, a 15-20 goes quicker.

Anywho, I dont mean for any of that to be offensive, and even though I typed it in fact form, it is rather my humble opinion on the matter.

Oh yeah, to all who have pm'd, sorry its taking me a couple days to respond, I let them get ahead of me and now have a couple pages to dig through and reply! Sorry about that! thats what a couple days of not checking will do to you! keep em comin though!

[bruce drake]

Bruce,

No offense intended, but that announcement is a lot of advertising hype, with no explanation of the engineering or composition of the bullet. It looks like someone cut off the nose of a Barnes 50gr Varmint Grenade and stuffed in the tip of a Remington Bronze Point bullet. Whattyaknow about the innards? If you're not allowed to say, I understand completely. Does it have the ability to penetrate moderate barriers, as does a .30 (7.62) round? Details! Details!

Regards,

Stew

Stew,

It's a hardened penetrator thats a lot harder than the Rem BP. It will punch through moderate barriers (car doors and windshields, 1/2" plate, sandbags, cinderblocks, etc) with ease. It tested better that M80 ball (7.62 NATO) in these regards. It will also tumble very quickly once it hits a soft target as well. No zip throughs like we had in Somalia. It does what we will be asking of it. You won't be buying these bullets at your local surplus sales point for a long time to come.

Bruce

[9.3X62AL]

Cool deal, Bruce. Y'all deserve the best that can be furnished. Period.

[Marine Sgt 2111]

First, lets talk about the rifle. Having used the M-16 A-4 in dusty conditions (Iraq) I for one am over joyed to see the military looking towards gas piston vs gas tube operated rifles. Amen, amen, amen. The Marine Corps has been looking at the H&K 417 and the device itself will be a huge improvement.

Second: the cartridge. If the 5.56 is so frikken effective and impressive gentlemen, why the h*ll does the Marine Corps teach "failure" drills when shooting close quarters combat? To those who do not know, that means take two shots in the chest and one in the head. This now takes a weapon with a 30 round magazine and reduces it to a ten shot rifle. The rifle has a 1:7 twist which for the most part makes it a through and through wound. Add the fact that as a DM I could shoot 3" groups (average), prone at 100 yds w/Leupold M4 with M-855 and I'm just not impressed.

I scrounged up 350 rounds of M-262 ammo (5.56 loaded with 77gr Sierra HPBT) and groups shrank to 1 1/8 to 1 1/4" at 100 yds. Then there's the terminal effect. A 2" bloodspot on the front and an 8" out the back with a slot and not a hole in the middle. Now that's one shot one kill.

As much as I like the ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel followed by the 6.8, gentlemen, with 10's of millions of rounds of 5.56 on hand, M-249's, A-2's, A-4's and M-4's there's just no way the military is going to another similar cartridge. What they will do however is use the 7.62 (.308 win) in refurbished or new M-14's. The DM's are being issued M-14's with optics for Afganistan. The Marine Corps already uses the M-110 SASS as a gas gun shooting platform in a supressed form.

Which would I rather have a bunch of small caliber ammo that I may have to shoot several times to stop or a larger cartridge, carry less ammo and have it be effective in one shot? An easy choice. Someone talked about shooting the .308 full auto and the recoil. In the real infantry world you use a M-240 for suppressive fire while the fire teams close in on and kill the enemy. And if you look at what the enemy is using in Afganistan for distance shooting...old Enfields, Mosins and Mausers.

That's my two cents worth and it comes from lessons learned while in that party town called Fallujah and not second hand.

[JIMinPHX]

The Marine Corps already uses the M-110 SASS as a gas gun shooting platform

Please pardon the ignorance of a lowly cactus shade hunter, but what's an M-110?

[GabbyM]

Please pardon the ignorance of a lowly cactus shade hunter, but what's an M-110?

From wikipedia dot org.

The rifle is similar to the SR-25/Mk 11 Mod 0 semi-automatic precision rifles utilized by U.S. Army Ranger Recon teams, but differs significantly in buttstock and rail system design. The SR-25, Mk 11 Mod 0, and M110 are based loosely off the original AR-10 developed by Eugene Stoner but feature additional refinements instituted by KAC to maximize parts commonality with the AR15 / M16, improve weapon reliability, and increase accuracy.

[Multigunner]

Wasn't the Lee Navy some time around 1900? Maybe I'm thinking about something else.

Nope, Lee Navy 1895 Wiki knows all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1895_Lee_Navy)

There was an experimental round very similar to the Lee Navy 6mm tested as a Squad Auto cartridge. Don't remember much of anything about it, since it was never intended as a rifle cartridge.
They tried several different case lengths, I think the 6X50 was the longest.

[1Shirt]

Interesting thread! Guess I am just old corps (started with a Garand). Think ya gota hitum to gitum. Have always liked the .224 regardless of blt. weight for P-dogs, woodchucks, and paper punching. Like the .243 for the same reason, but with the capacity to reach out and touch longer. Don't know a lot about the newer ctgs, or the platforms that shoot them, but do like 308/06 to put man size and larger on the ground with center hits. Know weight is a factor, and know that I am not carrying 100 lbs of anyting any more.

Am not for spraying rifle ammo that is light weight and running out for sure. For street sweeping and house to house, think that any pistol ctg in a sub machine gun from 9MM-45ACP would be fine. However, I would rather have a 7 shot shotgun with buck for that kind of work.

And-----the reference to Enfields/mausers/and mosins rings true to me. We expend a whale of a lot of ammo for the number of hits not to mention the number of kills. Not just true now, but has been since the advent of the machine gun and semi/full autos----and admit I love rapid fire weaponsl. They are fun, but expensive to feed.

:holysheepLastly, need to remember that for every thing weapon :thats out, there is a mfg out there hoping for a big contract, and probably a senator or congressman supporting the mfg. That is reality.

1Shirt!:coffee:

[82nd airborne]

I know for a fact that the special peoples in the little compound behind the fence at bragg use 6x45 AR's for combat ops in various places, because it shoots a 90gr bullet at 2450, which is pretty good stuff. It also still uses all standard AR parts minus the barrel, and utilizes 30rd mags reliably.
Even though all it needed was a barrel change, I know 100% that they have at least 100 completely custom uppers in 6x45.

I think this is a reasonable canidate for the next mil. round. They even made a SAW in it, talk about cool.

[45r]

If I made me a rifle that would be better than a 223 it would be a 222rem necked up to 6mm and use 80 to 90 grain bullets.It could be seated out to reach the lands and the base would not protrude past the neck.The neck is straight,not tapered like a 223rem.6mmx222 AR's often shoot in the .1's and would have more stopping power over the 223 at closer ranges.They feed very well.I don't think the 223 works that great in a short barrel myself.I don't think the military will ever drop the 223,only the more elite forces usually get the larger cal rifles.I think the MP5 in 10mm makes the best subgun.One in 45acp would be very good good also.

[JIMinPHX]

I know for a fact that the special peoples in the little compound behind the fence at bragg use 6x45 AR's for combat ops in various places, because it shoots a 90gr bullet at 2450, which is pretty good stuff. It also still uses all standard AR parts minus the barrel, and utilizes 30rd mags reliably.
Even though all it needed was a barrel change, I know 100% that they have at least 100 completely custom uppers in 6x45.

I think this is a reasonable canidate for the next mil. round. They even made a SAW in it, talk about cool.

So then, I take it 6x45 = a necked up .223?

[82nd airborne]

yessir.

[Marine Sgt 2111]

It (6 x 45mm) was originally brought out to allow the ar-15 platform to compete at a higher level against the .30 cals on the Nat'l Match Course. A great round, it just lost out at the 600 yd line.

[82nd airborne]

Very true. I kind of hope they go for it, since anything over that range will be done with something dedicated to it. It is getting to where now, most army patrols on foot are not without a 7.62 toting marksman. I think the two would make a great pair. I am impressed with the 6mm's performance out around 300m. I really like the .257x45 too, but they will never go with that, as it doesnt roll off the tounge as nicely. Both are great for deer sized game and yotes too, its a tossup as to which one will get carried into the woods, but usually the .257.

[JIMinPHX]

I've always thought that the .223 was false economy when they start talking about being able to carry more ammo. You have a 55 grain bullet in a 100ish grain case with 20ish grains of powder for about 170 total grains of weight. If you have a gun that is in 3-shot burst mode, because that's what makes it actually effective at knocking down targets quick in a hot situation, then you have a 10-shot weapon (with a 30 round mag) that chews up 530 grains of loaded cartridges each time you pull the trigger. There are other calibers out there that give you better fire power per pound of ammo. 1 medium caliber cartridge weighs less than 3 varmint rounds. That's the way that I see it. Of course, I'm just a hunter & target shooter. I don't have fire fight experience, so my opinion is from the outside looking in & therefore of limited value.

[Multigunner]

The germans experimented with a small bore rifle cartridge sometime after WW1, some odd designation like 5.8 or there abouts, basically a .22 centerfire with impressive ballistics for the day.
They ran up against the same wall that had finally killed the 7mm Mauser as an infantry cartridge, you just couldn't make a very effective AP bullet with a diameter that small. It took a .30 or larger diameter to carry an AP core that wouldn't break up on impact, at least a core made by any economical method and one that could be mass produced in a wartime setting.

By AP I mean actual Armor Piercing performance, not simply being able to penetrate a car door without turning into a spray of lead and jacket fragments.
The Germans developed some real killer AP rounds for the 7.92, and for a time issued one five round clip of Tungsten Core AP to each soldier for use in case pinned down by an Allied light armored vehicle.
As one US officer said when asked if the German Ammo penetrated our half tracks ( not exact words) they don't penetrate the vehicle, they just go through one side then bounce around inside for awhile.

Much 7.62 NATO Ball intended for rifles rather than MGs is not well designed for penetration, the Infantry Ball has a 150 gr or lighter bullet, and theres a extra high velocity 130 gr AP bullet. These are not much when compared to WW2 era rifle caliber AP bullets. They seem to have forgotten the lessons learned in 20th century conflicts.
The 5.56 NATO is so severely limited in bullet weight and diameter that a truly effective AP bullet is unlikely to appear other than on paper. Rather than a new bullet design being 50% more effective they should say 50% less ineffective.

Body Armor has become more available to the potential enemies our troops will face, and it doesn't take much to make a auto body highly resistent to 5.56 fire. Simple expediants such as filling the door with rocks and sand can do the trick, filling the door with scrap metal plates and concrete has also worked fairly well.

One major selling point of the original AR-15 and its .223 cartridge when offered to the U S Airforce was that in case a sentry/guard had to engage enemy infiltrators on an airfield the .223 was highly unlikely to cause serious damage to any aircraft that might catch a stray round. Most of the time the .223 wouldn't even bust the tire or damage the components of military spec landing gear.

The 5.56 is deadly on flesh, but these days you can't depend on the enemy being without effective body armor and not being smart enough to know the difference between concealment and effective cover.

[Ilwil]

My unit's 16s were switched over to M-4s as we were deploying to Kosovo in 2000. When we shot for record, we all thought the shorter barrel might affect accuracy. Those who customarily shot Expert did so again, as with Sharpshooters, etc. The interesting thing was nearly all of us shot slightly higher scores than we had with the 16s in preceding years. So, our confidence in the M-4s was high.
As was said repeatedly earlier, the 5.56 is going to be around a lot longer. Very soon it will be the longest-lived cartridge/rifle combination in our military history.

[spqrzilla]

Multigunner, before WWII small arms AP rounds would be a threat to a lot of armored vehicles. However, that period largely ended before '39. Recall what a soldier at Kasserine told Gen. Bradley in "Patton" when asked of German machine gun rounds penetrated US half tracks: "No sir, they only go through one side and rattle around".

[Multigunner]

Multigunner, before WWII small arms AP rounds would be a threat to a lot of armored vehicles. However, that period largely ended before '39. Recall what a soldier at Kasserine told Gen. Bradley in "Patton" when asked of German machine gun rounds penetrated US half tracks: "No sir, they only go through one side and rattle around".
Thats probably the quote I was thinking of, I figured I didn't have it exactly right so I didn't use " marks.

The sort of "technicals" and other lightly armored civilian vehicles cooked up by insurgents aren't likely to be as resistent to rifle fire as the best AFVs of WW2.

The Tungsten Core AP I spoke of was used by the German LMGs and was to be used in rifles only when nothing else could get the job done. Lightly armored fighting vehicles and scout cars were still common throughout the war, and many of the vehicles in use by European armies in the 30's were still in use, more being used by the Germans after they had captured these earlier in the war.
Besides vehicle armor, and penetration good enough to wreck a truck engine at a great distance, penetration of gun shields, like that found on the Russian heavy MGs going back to their version of the Maxim with its wheeled mounting which remained in use during WW2, was also desirable.
In WW1 armor plate shields with loop hole firing ports were used to protect snipers in the trenches.
The Japanese continued to use steel breast plates and other archaic forms of body armor on a limited basis throughout WW2. The armor was seldom seen other than on high ranking officers and some machinegunners and the Japanese Air Commandos.These wouldn't stop a lead core battle rifle round even at a range of several hundred yards, but the AP could penetrate these defenses at much longer ranges even if slowed by passing through sand bags or other barricade materials.
Tests run on WW1 era body armor showed it was suprisingly effective against some cartridges still in use during WW2.
Mobile shields big enough to protect a MG gunner and his assistant were also tested and possibly fielded or field trialed. They even had a sort of micro tank, a armored wheeled shield big enough to protect a prone rifleman as he crawled along pushing the shield along with him so he could halt to fire a few rounds and then advance.

Metal body armor that could stop a lead core main battle cartridge cold had been tested but was too heavy to wear and move about in for any distance.

When long range is a factor, as it has often been in Afghanistan, the heavier and tougher bullet can get the job done while the 5.56 usually falls short in performance.
At closer ranges even a steel window frame or door frame, such as are common in places of business and also found in many homes, can take away enough velocity that if the 5.56 bullet does pass through and hit flesh the wound may not incapacitate an enemy combatant.
The U S military manuals on Urban Combat reveal that the 5.56 just can't be depended on to defeat many common obstacles, even an angled hit on a thick window pane can deflect it (thats mentioned in the manual, and I'm not all that surprised to find that out).

The M4 seems to be a pretty good platform, but the shorter the barrel the more velocity will be lost. Its great against unprotected flesh, but not so great if the bullets have to pass through any substantial materials to reach flesh.

[JIMinPHX]

It (6 x 45mm) was originally brought out to allow the ar-15 platform to compete at a higher level against the .30 cals on the Nat'l Match Course. A great round, it just lost out at the 600 yd line.

I'm not going to make a bunch of comments on the military value of that cartridge because I'd be speaking outside the realm of my actual experience. But after having thought about it for a while, I think that 6 x 45 would make a real nice efficient little hunting round for medium game up to small deer. That's a nice match of powder capacity to bullet size. I'll bet it would be a good round for cast boolits too.

I don't have the time or money to dip into a project like that right now, but some day when I do eventually get around to fooling with black rifles, I think that might be one of my first little pet projects. It just sounds too darn useful to pass up. I may not even wait until the day that I start fooling with black rifles. I may try to make up a barrel for a Handi-Rifle if I can find a barrel blank at the right price.

[Combat Diver]

There is a 5.56x45 AP bullet in use by the US Army. It is the M995 AP cartridge (52 gr @ 3320 fps) and has been in the system for several years. Orginally only intended for the M249 SAW and not even listed for the M16/M4 but that has changed. Army has recently annouced fielding the M4A1 used by SF to the rest of the forces in Afghanistan. Changes are full auto instead of burst, heavier barrel for longer rates of fire and a ambi safety.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m993.htm
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/rifle/556mm_ammo.html

CD

[bruce drake]

Tungsten. nice. 1930's tech.
M855A1 - 2010 tech. Consider it progress.
Nasty bullet.

[9.3X62AL]

Tungsten. nice. 1930's tech.
M855A1 - 2010 tech. Consider it progress.
Nasty bullet.

The nastier, the better.

No military experience here, but did a fair stretch in civilian LE. The 5.56 argument of "more cartridges/lighter in weight" sounds suspiciously similar to the 9mm side of the 1980s 9mm vs. 45 ACP debate. Interestingly, in 1989 the difference was split by the 40 S&W that gave handgun ballistics identical to that of the century-old (at the time) 38-40 WCF. The rest is history, as they say. The 6.8 SPC et al seems on the surface to be a similar response. For my part, I want our courageous warfighters to have the best tooling possible. And God bless them.

[82nd airborne]

I dont mind the 5.56 at all, as long as the ammo is good. The 75g TAP has about the same effect as 7.62 ball. But, green tip is a no go in my short, jumbled book.

[GabbyM]

What twist rate does the new M855A1 require?
Not like I’ll ever shoot any but curiosity is the devil.
The new bullet looks like just what we needed.

Since i'ts named M855A1 I'd assume it would shoot in the same rifles as M855 ammo. but it's a crazy world.

[nicholst55]

What twist rate does the new M855A1 require?
Not like I’ll ever shoot any but curiosity is the devil.
The new bullet looks like just what we needed.

Since i'ts named M855A1 I'd assume it would shoot in the same rifles as M855 ammo. but it's a crazy world.

Big Army says that no changes are necessary with the M855A1 cartridge - same barrels, same ballistics, same sight adjustment. I'm waiting for the reports of actual combat use before I'm convinced that it's the end-all 5.56mm cartridge.

[bruce drake]

It can be used in all current versions of the M16 (A2/A4/M4). I don't believe the new version was tested in the A1 other than for function.

The 62gr green tip is great for suppressive fire from M249 SAWs, I wouldn't ever use the stuff for a highpower rifle match though.

And Al, oh my is it nasty. It will punch through cars and windshields very easy and still tumble when it hits its soft target.

For the folks who think the insurgents here are trying to armor up thier Hondas and Toyotas, its quite the opposite. They rip out a lot of the interior and try to load as much homemade explosive(HME - think less efficient than commercial standard so they have to use more) as they can in. HME will start to burn on its own if you punch holes through the bags with a bullet. most of the HME is a fertilizer/fuel mix so its still pretty flammable if they don't cure it right.
And most of the insurgents here are illiterate farmers so they operate by trial and error sometimes. Makes for a pretty funny surveillance video when you see someone pulling the cord/pushing the button on their suicide vest to only have the damn thing cook off like a Roman Candle instead of exploding. Makes for a Crispy Taliban...sometimes we can actually find a fire extinuguisher in time...

Bruce

[AZ-Stew]

Bruce,

Thanks for the info on the projectile.

Back in the early 70s when I was stationed in Norfolk, VA, I bought a Remington M-760 pump carbine in 30-06 from a shipmate. He had bought it through the ship's store, but the store had accidentally ordered the pump, when my shipmate had wanted the 742 semi-auto. Anyway, the only place I knew that was unpopulated enough to shoot was down on Cape Hatteras. We'd cross the bridge from the mainland out to the cape and turn north. A few miles up, there was no one and nothing except for sand dunes. I took the rifle along and out on the beach I found a 14 inch square wooden beam that looked like part of a wooden bridge that had washed out to sea, then been washed back up on shore. It had been creosote-treated, so it wasn't rotted. I shot one W-W 180 grain soft point into the beam. It didn't exit. I also shot a 150 grain military ball round into it. That round exited the back of the beam, left a splash spot in the sand of the dune behind the beam and ricocheted out into Currituck Sound.

This is why I've always thought the .30 caliber rounds were superior to the .22s. Barrier penetration. Will the new round penetrate that much wood? Or adobe walls?

Thanks,

Stew

[bowfin]

The M14 won't be around much longer after Afghanistan. Why, no parts and no trained armorers. I carried a National Match M14 in Iraq in 04 and then used the same rifle out to 1000yds at the All Army Matches in 06'. They are worn out and can not be sustained.

I was under the impression that new M-14s (or variations thereof) are being bought from Smith Enterprises.

[Linstrum]

I was also under the impression that Springfield Armory is in full production of a modified version of their M1A for the military.


rl987

[Multigunner]

I was also under the impression that Springfield Armory is in full production of a modified version of their M1A for the military.


rl987

Hopefully this will mean their civilian market rifles will benefit from the company having to meet ridgid government specs. Not that I have any reason to believe their product isn't already a good rifle. I've shot an M1A a bit many years ago, that was a pretty good specimen ,never cared for the M14 style fore end though.
There was an aftermarket stock for the M1A and M14 that had the same fore end profile as the Garand, those looked worth consideration for anyone more used to the feel of the Garand.

[bruce drake]

Stew,

Yes to both. Specs won't be going on this forum though.

Bruce

[45r]

Has anyone shot the 6mmAR or the 6x47.Seems like they would have a lot more power and range than the 223.

[AZ-Stew]

Stew,

Yes to both. Specs won't be going on this forum though.

Bruce

Impressive.

Regards,

Stew

[MakeMineA10mm]

I like to think of myself as the grandfather of the 6.8 SPC. You see, back in 1998 or 1999, I was involved in a debate about what the "next" US military caliber should be. There was obviously a LOT of debate back and forth between the merits and disadvantages of the 5.56 vs. the 7.62 NATOs. Then, there was a third group that advocated for the 7.62x39 M43 Soviet. But, no one was looking at the situation from a "clean sheet of paper" point of view.

I sorted through the evolution of the Assualt Rifle, starting with the MP-44 and going through the sub-caliber "developments" up to today. I pointed out some system issues, where the gun, cartridge, combat need, combat load-out of personnel, and "universal" fit of a cartridge to multiple weapons systems would be ideal. I then sorted through the respective advantages and disadvantages of all three of the primarily-advocated cartridges.

Finally, I said, what was needed was a modern intermediate cartridge that carefully balanced, fit (to the weapons), weight, terminal performance, and recoil. (Remembering back to my experience with the StG44 and it's perfect balance of weight, recoil and cyclic timing.) I proposed a "clean-sheet-of-paper design" that would start with a compromise between the two primary NATO rounds. I split the difference in the groove diameter and case head sizes. I then pointed out that to maintain controllable full auto recoil in a lightweight weapon, we'd need to aim below the recoil impulse of the Soviet round. I also wanted to make the round fit in any 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39 Soviet weapon, because no country would realisticly put for the money or effort if the end result also required re-equipping the entire military with all new weapons. A conversion, I felt, was the way to go.

I then searched for a case with the proper head size and found the 30 Remington. I recommended shortening it to 44mm and necking it down to take a 6.5mm bullet. I estimated velocity would be about 2650 fps with a 107gr Sierra MK, which was also the ideal bullet weight, in my estimation. I named this round the 6.5 Sturmgewehr (in honor of the first assualt rifle). I suggested body taper should be such that it would work in M-16 magazines and that the neck length should be around .250" or slightly longer. OAL had to be short enough to work in an AR or AK magazine.

Never thought another thing of it, until 5 years later, there was an announcement that some troops from 5th SF Gp. and the AMU worked together and came up with a new combat cartridge called the 6.8SPC. Interesting similarities, no??

I happen to know that some guys from 5th Group were in that discussion. (My cousin was in 5th Group at that time.) I really thought nothing would ever come of it, because we were at peace, and no govt. spends much money on military in peace, unless they're gearing up for an offensive war. The US has virtually never done this. Lo-and-Behold, the War On Terror starts a couple years later, and there's a call/need for better terminal ballistics in assualt rifles, and the 6.8 emerges...

Could it all be a coincidence? Absolutely, but I like to think I stirred the juices of development with the 6.5 StG.

A couple things not dealt with so far in this debate about which cartridge would work:

1) It was pretty decisively shown in Small Arms Review a few years ago that the 6.5 Grendel is not a very workable cartridge for the military. The case body is so short that the M249 belts would not work without major re-engineering, whereas the 6.8 works perfect, except for a slightly larger diameter (easy to change). In addition, the Grendel works at a higher pressure than either the 5.56 or the 6.8. In and of itself, this isn't a huge deal, but when you're loading for multiple weapons and multiple climates that the ammo could be used in, it starts getting a little hairy. A lower-pressure round would be preferrable. Third, the Grendel's "advantage" over the 6.8 is mainly due to higher BC (i.e. longer) bullets. Load the same B.C. bullets in the 6.8 and load the cartridges to likely pressures that the military would accept, and the difference between them disappears to next to nothing.

2) The 7.62x39 M43 Soviet won't likely be adopted either. It's geometry doesn't work well in our weapon systems. (In spite of this, I like it! The Soviets did a great job of building a soldier-proof magazine that will even work as a monopod without destroying it's effectiveness. The AK magazine system should be required study by military weapons designers.) In addition, it's recoil impulse is just slightly too high to work ideally in an assault rifle. Neck it down to 6.5mm and keep the velocity reasonable (~ 2650fps) and put it in a rifle who's cyclic rate is better, and it would work fine, but basically, we're at a whole different cartridge again...

3) The 7.62 NATO will not likely be our service cartridge again. It is a fine Medium/Genl-Purpose MG round and sniper round, but it is clearly too heavy a round for an assault rifle. Go back to a semi-auto, and maybe, but I think that would be a developmental step backwards too. The 6.8 on semi-auto has the exact same trajectory as the 7.62 NATO and plenty of killing power to be an effective one-shot-kill weapon, just as well as a 7.62 NATO. The only downside to the 6.8 when compared to the 7.62 is tactical barrier penetration.


Ideally, the 6.8 could be adopted as our only rifle-caliber. It has enough of everything to be an Asslt. Rifle cartridge, a SAW round, and even a Medium Machine Gun round. Supplement it with the 40mm Grenade, mortars, and the .50-cal MG, and we could actually go away altogether from the 7.62 NATO round.


However, all that said, I think this will never happen. The Mk262 and M855A1 have shown the way. The 5.56 NATO has been continually upgraded to the point of shaving the clarity of the line between the "weak" 5.56 and the mid-range compromises like the 6.8 SPC. And, this is FAR cheaper than switching to a new caliber. SO, the answer to the OP's question is that the 5.56mm is the cartridge of the future for America's military.

As the "grandfather" of the 6.8, I'm actually OK with that. I don't care what our troops carry, as long as it's the best thing we can get for them. (And, by extension, that line of distinction is really blurred with these new rounds coming on-line, so they are getting some really good ammo/cartridges.)

[Linstrum]

Hi, MakeMineA10mm, Thanks for enlarging on the benefits of a cartridge like the 6.8 (the 6.5 that you envisioned). What you had to say is pretty much what I read at another place that had analyzed the current cartridge performance requirements for our military. Every point you brought out and elaborated on mirrored what others had to say about the qualities that the 6.8 SPC should have.

Interesting post!


rl988

[Doc Highwall]

The 6X45 is the 223 case necked up and the 6X47 is the 222Mag case necked up.

[scb]

I doubt there will be any change of cartridge until caseless becomes viable.
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/61069.jpg

[JIMinPHX]

Stew,

Yes to both. Specs won't be going on this forum though.

Bruce

Thank you.

Loose lips sink ships.

[JIMinPHX]

I doubt there will be any change of cartridge until caseless becomes viable.
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/61069.jpg

Now there's a concept that really should be looked at. If you were to build a gun that extracted the powder, primer & shot from a plastic case, but didn't need to rely on brass to make a gas seal, then you could pack the punch of a .308 in a cartridge with the weight of a .223. I don't think that it would be all that hard to do. I'd kind of like to work on a development project like that if I had some more resource available to me.

[45r]

The 6X45 is the 223 case necked up and the 6X47 is the 222Mag case necked up.

I have had a lot of 22 cal rifles 22 hornet, 221,222,223,22-250 and they all make good Varmit rifles.I have worked up loads for guys who shoot deer with there 6x45 and other 6mm varmit rifles and they say the 6mm works far better than any 22.The 6x43(6mmx222rem)with 85 grain speer SP seated to 2.600 goes around 2850fps(hodgdon data).The 6x45 and 6x47 does better with heavier bullets.Lapua doesn't make 222rem brass anymore so I don't think it would be worth the expense of making a 6x43 anymore.I should have bought some,the rem brass ain't as good.The 6x47 has 20 percent more capacity and likes being seated tight to the lands.The 6mm ppc is only slightly more accurate.The 6mmAR is like the ppc but faster.I think the 6mm would be better myself.Some day I'd like to get a 6mm AR.I have a 24 inch H-bar elite that came with a hart barrel and does real well on varmits but I think it would work with 64 grain win SP's on deer but I'd much rather use a 6mm.The military will do what ever they want but I would like to see a better round than the 223.If a 223 doesn't work well on deer why make the soldiers use it with somebody shooting at them.Maybe the new AP round will be more effective.I read some soldiers weren't very happy with the 223 when they used it in Mogadishu.Some of the older guys here might remember the 25 Copperhead,wonder if it would work in a AR.It's a 222rem necked to 257.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Hi, MakeMineA10mm, Thanks for enlarging on the benefits of a cartridge like the 6.8 (the 6.5 that you envisioned). What you had to say is pretty much what I read at another place that had analyzed the current cartridge performance requirements for our military. Every point you brought out and elaborated on mirrored what others had to say about the qualities that the 6.8 SPC should have.

Interesting post!


rl988

Thanks. To make things even more interesting is that the 6.8 (a.k.a. 6.5 StG [smilie=l: ), has become the basis for some amazing wildcats.

After moving on from the Assault Rifle conversations pre-Y2K, I got interested in Varminting and joined VHA. I read a lot, discussed a lot, and assembled a decent battery of 22 center-fires, including 223s and 222s. I was thinking on a 220 Swift, but I went back and re-read the old "Your's Truly" column in the back of the Handloader Magazines. (For those who don't know, Harvey Donaldson is one of the founders of the NBRSA, was it's first president, and was an inveterate Varmint hunter.) I started getting a hankering for a 219 Donaldson Wasp, but I never moved because of the rimmed case (best in a single-shot rifle), and lack of suitable/easy base cases to convert. Then the 6.8 came out. After getting over my shock/joy of seeing my concept actually hit production status (in slightly modified form), I began thinking how necking it down to take .224" bullets would make it very, very close to a rimless version of the Donaldson Wasp, AND, would work in an accurized AR.... (Hmmm, semi-auto, rather than single-shot; better to stay in position and watch the shots and track the target.) In theory, I would get better barrel life and less recoil/muzzle blast than a 22-250 or 220 Swift, near identical performance - only about 300fps below the "big 22s", accuracy from the short-fat case concept (as Donaldson was interested in, but before we thought of it as "short-fat"), a pretty-fairly ideal case capacity for that bore size - again, as Donaldson felt with his Wasp cartridge. By my way of thinking, a 1-8" or 1-8.5" twist would be ideal for this cartridge using the Barnes 50gr Varmint Grenade for hunting, or the 69gr SMK for target shooting.

More recently, continuing to research the 22-6.8 (which several people have already done), I ran across some referrences to a 6mm version of this wildcat. I started thinking that a combination varmint/target rifle in 6mm (still based on the 6.8 case) would be better for wind resistence than the 224", while still having good varmint (Barnes VGs in 6mm are 62gr) and match bullets (Sierra 107gr MKs). In my research, I find that a fellow named Bernosky has won his last two National Championship Service Rifle titles with a 6mm Hagar, which is this same wildcat, but with a .100" longer body (cases must be formed from 30 Rem. brass). Pretty impressive, but when I look at it, it appears to me the bullets have to be seated deep in the Hagar to work through the magazine, so not quite right for me. I think the standard 6.8 case would work better. Kept searching, and I find out the gunsmith who built Bernosky's Hagar upper lives about 30 minutes down the road from me... AND, he makes a 6mm on the standard 6.8 case. (It's called the 6 WOA.)

I think I've found my poison. I'm saving my pennies, nickels, and dimes right now, and when I have enough, I plan on driving over, checking out the place, and getting my varmint/target rifle based on the 6.8 case, finally(!). I am still struggling with the idea of a .224" wildcat, though. It would be fun to have a semi-auto version of the Don-Wasp. But on the other hand, if the 6mm is that superior, I might have to do some soul-searching. Also will definitely talk to John Hollister (the gunsmith at WOA) about his opinion and whether he can do a .224" version of the 6WOA.

Sorry for the off-topic drift, but it looks like virtually everyone agrees the 5.56 NATO is the cartridge of the past, current, and future US military, especially with the new SOST rounds.

[dualsport]

****. I stockpiled a lot of old Lake City 55 gr. way back when, for SHTF stash. I think it's called M193? Not sure. The more I read here the less confidence I have in it. But I know I'd sure hate to be on the recieving end of it anyway. But I have no practical experience with it business wise. Is it that bad really? Sounds like some of the guys who know first hand consider it almost useless.

[Piedmont]

Thanks. To make things even more interesting is that the 6.8 (a.k.a. 6.5 StG [smilie=l: ), has become the basis for some amazing wildcats.

After moving on from the Assault Rifle conversations pre-Y2K, I got interested in Varminting and joined VHA. I read a lot, discussed a lot, and assembled a decent battery of 22 center-fires, including 223s and 222s. I was thinking on a 220 Swift, but I went back and re-read the old "Your's Truly" column in the back of the Handloader Magazines. (For those who don't know, Harvey Donaldson is one of the founders of the NBRSA, was it's first president, and was an inveterate Varmint hunter.) I started getting a hankering for a 219 Donaldson Wasp, but I never moved because of the rimmed case (best in a single-shot rifle), and lack of suitable/easy base cases to convert. Then the 6.8 came out. After getting over my shock/joy of seeing my concept actually hit production status (in slightly modified form), I began thinking how necking it down to take .224" bullets would make it very, very close to a rimless version of the Donaldson Wasp, AND, would work in an accurized AR.... (Hmmm, semi-auto, rather than single-shot; better to stay in position and watch the shots and track the target.) In theory, I would get better barrel life and less recoil/muzzle blast than a 22-250 or 220 Swift, near identical performance - only about 300fps below the "big 22s", accuracy from the short-fat case concept (as Donaldson was interested in, but before we thought of it as "short-fat"), a pretty-fairly ideal case capacity for that bore size - again, as Donaldson felt with his Wasp cartridge. By my way of thinking, a 1-8" or 1-8.5" twist would be ideal for this cartridge using the Barnes 50gr Varmint Grenade for hunting, or the 69gr SMK for target shooting.

More recently, continuing to research the 22-6.8 (which several people have already done), I ran across some referrences to a 6mm version of this wildcat. I started thinking that a combination varmint/target rifle in 6mm (still based on the 6.8 case) would be better for wind resistence than the 224", while still having good varmint (Barnes VGs in 6mm are 62gr) and match bullets (Sierra 107gr MKs). In my research, I find that a fellow named Bernosky has won his last two National Championship Service Rifle titles with a 6mm Hagar, which is this same wildcat, but with a .100" longer body (cases must be formed from 30 Rem. brass). Pretty impressive, but when I look at it, it appears to me the bullets have to be seated deep in the Hagar to work through the magazine, so not quite right for me. I think the standard 6.8 case would work better. Kept searching, and I find out the gunsmith who built Bernosky's Hagar upper lives about 30 minutes down the road from me... AND, he makes a 6mm on the standard 6.8 case. (It's called the 6 WOA.)

I think I've found my poison. I'm saving my pennies, nickels, and dimes right now, and when I have enough, I plan on driving over, checking out the place, and getting my varmint/target rifle based on the 6.8 case, finally(!). I am still struggling with the idea of a .224" wildcat, though. It would be fun to have a semi-auto version of the Don-Wasp. But on the other hand, if the 6mm is that superior, I might have to do some soul-searching. Also will definitely talk to John Hollister (the gunsmith at WOA) about his opinion and whether he can do a .224" version of the 6WOA.

Sorry for the off-topic drift, but it looks like virtually everyone agrees the 5.56 NATO is the cartridge of the past, current, and future US military, especially with the new SOST rounds.

Ha!! Do you know what you have done? There was a Lindahl Chucker back about 1940, two actually, by a fellow in Nebraska. One was rimmed and one rimless off of the .25 remington, both .22 centerfires. You can read about them in Landis's Twenty-two Caliber Varmint Rifles. Your rimless version sounds very close to his as it was on a shortened case.

[MakeMineA10mm]

****. I stockpiled a lot of old Lake City 55 gr. way back when, for SHTF stash. I think it's called M193? Not sure. The more I read here the less confidence I have in it. But I know I'd sure hate to be on the recieving end of it anyway. But I have no practical experience with it business wise. Is it that bad really? Sounds like some of the guys who know first hand consider it almost useless.
dualsport -- remember, we're talking about the military usefulness of the cartridge. They have slightly different needs. A big one is tactical (barrier) penetration, but others include usefullness across a wider variety of weapons (at least Carbine, Rifle, and Sqd. Auto. Wpn.), and amount of rounds a unit can carry. For a personal SHTF stockpile, M-193 is NOT bad. Civil disorder is not going to result in classic military-style operations, unless it gets really, really bad. A small stockpile of M-193 would be useful for 95% (+) of your needs in those situations, in my estimation.


Ha!! Do you know what you have done? There was a Lindahl Chucker back about 1940, two actually, by a fellow in Nebraska. One was rimmed and one rimless off of the .25 remington, both .22 centerfires. You can read about them in Landis's Twenty-two Caliber Varmint Rifles. Your rimless version sounds very close to his as it was on a shortened case.

Yes! There is also a write-up about the Lindahl Chuckers in Wolfe Publishing's Wildcats Handbook (that's not the correct name, but it's close). I've got the combo edition, but I think it's in book #1 of that set. In the article (which is from the 70s or early 80s), the author compares the Chuckers to the 22 PPC and 6mm PPC, and describes how Lindahl came up with the short-fat cartridge long before the Benchrest community did.

According to the case drawings, the Chuckers look slightly shorter than a 22-6.8. Again, don't have the book in front of me, but I want to say it's around .100" shorter in the body. But, since the Chuckers are based on the same original case shortened as the 6.8SPC (the 30 Remington), the case head, body diameter, and many other dimensions are exactly the same.

The unfortunate thing is that the Chuckers were invented about 1940, so most of the powders used in such a case from back then are not around anymore. 3031 and 4198 are about it... I'm looking at H322, TAC, and Varget for loading, but I'm still in research mode at this point.

[JudgeBAC]

How does the new army round compare to the marine sost?

[MakeMineA10mm]

Judge,
I'm not sure the Jury is in on that question yet... :smile:

Here's a chart on the new M855A1 (open source, not classified):
http://www.army.mil/-images/2010/11/26/93070/army.mil-93070-2010-11-26-131141.jpg

The SOST, as I'm sure you know, was actually a SOCOM project, which the USMC joined in with and ordered a bunch of. It was originally designed/ordered for use in the even-shorter-barreled SCAR-L (13.8" barrel). Also as you probably know, its bullet is basically a modified Trophy Bonded Bear Claw bullet (with an "Open-Tip Match" nose).

The SOST round was designed to be "barrier blind" while the M855A1 was designed to improve tactical penetration at extended ranges (vs. the M855), plus be "green" (no lead). Also, the Big-Green part of the Army (as opposed to the SOCOM part of it) had issues with the open tip of the SOST round. They felt it violated the rules of war.

The interesting thing is that both bullets have what approaches a solid rear shank. In the SOST, it's part of and the way the jacket is drawn, whereas in the M855A1 it appears to be a separate copper slug (core) which site under the steel penetrator.

Both bullets penetrate as good or better than the M855 in all barriers, and at longer ranges. Both bullets appear to expand and fragment in soft targets.

It would appear that the Mk262 (77gr OTM) has fallen out of favor, probably mainly from lack of tactical barrier penetration, but I'm guessing also from a cost factor. The SOST is made by Federal at Lake City and the M855A1 came out of Piccatiny Arsenal, probably to be made at Lake City. Two competing designs, one from the Army ammunition executive office and one from the contractor who runs the military's small-arms ammo arsenal. Interesting that they both took similar but different roads to get near the same place, isn't it??

I think there is still some controversy out there about ANY small-caliber round being as effective as the 7.62, and I think they may have a point, but it's getting smaller and finer as projectile developments go on. On the other hand, what would happen if this technology is applied to bigger bullets, like 6.8s and 7.62s??

[MtGun44]

There is a fundamental problem with caseless ammo, beyond the obvious fragility
of the system.
The brass case captures a large portion of the heat of firing and physically removes
the heat from the gun before it can soak into the chamber. The caseless ammo does
not do this. Testing showed that full auto guns overheated dramatically faster with
caseless ammo, plus the caseless ammo would cook off much easier. So even if you
could solve the cooling issue with the brass, it would need to be an open bolt gun.

My bet is that it will be a long time, if ever, when the case gets replaced. Mechanical
integrity and cooling are huge issues.

Bill

[GabbyM]

There is a fundamental problem with caseless ammo, beyond the obvious fragility
of the system.
The brass case captures a large portion of the heat of firing and physically removes
the heat from the gun before it can soak into the chamber. The caseless ammo does
not do this. Testing showed that full auto guns overheated dramatically faster with
caseless ammo, plus the caseless ammo would cook off much easier. So even if you
could solve the cooling issue with the brass, it would need to be an open bolt gun.

My bet is that it will be a long time, if ever, when the case gets replaced. Mechanical
integrity and cooling are huge issues.

Bill

The Air Force spent countless millions trying to get the 25mm Gatling gun working for the F-15. When the caseless ammo cannon just would not work MD had to spend more millions redesigning the prototype aircraft to use the 20mm M61 and a system to capture spent brass. I don't think they ever flew the 25mm gun.
Engineers had at there disposal the development budget for the next generation air superiority fighter.

[MGD]

You are really dealing with two issues; one is the cartridge, the other is the utilization in the field. As to the cartridge this is an appealing dynamic that keeps recurring but never bets fielded. 1890s-6mm Lee Navy, 1930s-.276 Pederson, 1950s-British 280, 1960s 6mmSAW, and now the Socom etc. For various reasons, the most common being economy, they ever get adopted.
The second and larger issue is the level of training of our troops. To be brutally honest, we don't train them well enough for them to effectively shoot at longer ranges. Before flaming me realize that I shot competitvely in the Army for over 10 years, I also was heavily involved with training. We have lost our expertise, there are no General or Flag grade officers in DOD who are distinguished marksmen. A CPL in the Army gets more promotion points for APFT or college credit that for qualifing expert, and nothing for EIC points or distinguished status. You will know the military is taking marksmanship seriously when an Acadamy Graduate company Commander is relived of his line company command because of the state of marksmanship training of his unit. Unfortunately, training is oriented on the lowest common denominator.

[MakeMineA10mm]

You are really dealing with two issues; one is the cartridge, the other is the utilization in the field. As to the cartridge this is an appealing dynamic that keeps recurring but never bets fielded. 1890s-6mm Lee Navy, 1930s-.276 Pederson, 1950s-British 280, 1960s 6mmSAW, and now the Socom etc. For various reasons, the most common being economy, they ever get adopted.
The second and larger issue is the level of training of our troops. To be brutally honest, we don't train them well enough for them to effectively shoot at longer ranges. Before flaming me realize that I shot competitvely in the Army for over 10 years, I also was heavily involved with training. We have lost our expertise, there are no General or Flag grade officers in DOD who are distinguished marksmen. A CPL in the Army gets more promotion points for APFT or college credit that for qualifing expert, and nothing for EIC points or distinguished status. You will know the military is taking marksmanship seriously when an Acadamy Graduate company Commander is relived of his line company command because of the state of marksmanship training of his unit. Unfortunately, training is oriented on the lowest common denominator.

You make some excellent points, but there are examples of how both have/can happen.

For example, although the US/Nato hasn't fielded a successful intermediate cartridge, other countries have. The Japanese (6.5mm Arisaka) and Italians (6.5mm Carcano) both used 6.5mm cartridges in widespread, long-term use.

This was also shown as "proof" that my 6.5 StG wouldn't be a good solution as a service rifle cartridge either, because both cartridges were supplemented/superceded by ~.30-cal "big brothers," as well as both of those countries losing the war... However, I would argue that these intermediate ~6.5mm bore-size cartridges were utilized in bolt-action rifles and were fielded at a time when metallurgy for the jacket material and bore-coatings as well as cleaning chemicals/emphasis were not as advanced as today. There's a big difference using a 6.5mm 5-shot bolt action, vs. a 30-06 8-shot semi-auto, and it's not just about the cartridge. In fact, I assert, if you reverse the situation, and make the semi-auto a 6.5 and the 30-06 a five-shot bolt-action, the 6.5 is probably going to win, except in a long-range duel with no maneuvering.

Your statements about training are quite true, unfortunately. It's very sad and disappointing. Of course, the Marine Corps is a model the Army may want to look at. Last I checked, they shoot standard qualification course for every Marine out to 500 yards. That's the way it should be.

Not sure about flag-rank officers who are Distinguished, or points given for EIC points or Dist. badges, but I seem to recall seeing a Marine on TV recently who was wearing a Distinguished badge. Can't remember where or when though... Can't tell you the last time I've ever seen any Army soldier with a Distinguished badge. I know they're out there, but I haven't seen one in a long time. I know the AMU has shifted slightly towards a training role to improve marksmanship among combat-deployed units. That's a good thing, but it also seems to me to be gutting the competitive side of the unit...

[morme@gte.net]

The grendel does not stand a chance. too many feeding problems with SAWs


I was just looking up the characteristics of the recently developed Remington 6.8mm Special Purpose Cartridge and I like it a lot. Many rifles designed for the 5.56 NATO will handle it, making it attractive to boost a rifle's effectiveness to what is now required for the longer ranges and/or greater penetration like we have a need for in the Middle East. The good old M14 has also come out of mothballs and is being revamped for use for long range open land non-jungle warfare.

If the United States Military goes for a new cartridge to replace the 5.56 NATO for the ordinary ground pounder soldier, what do you think they will choose - the fat and stubby 6.5 mm Grendel based on the PPC, the more powerful 6.8 SPC based on the .30 Remington, or make a full return to the 7.62 NATO/M14? I'm not a betting man, but if I were I'd place my bet on the 6.8 mm Special Purpose Cartridge since it seems to be the best compromise for greater bullet energy and increased range yet still be small enough for the over-worked under appreciated ground pounder to still carry more rounds of ammo than if the 7.62 NATO were re-employed. For a physical appearance comparison of the 6.8mm or .277 caliber cartridge with the 5.56 NATO, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_SPC

Ruger now offers their Mini-14 chambered in this cartridge, hopefully ammunition and brass won't be difficult to find for those who choose this chambering. However, new cartridges - some darned good ones, too - come and go. When was the last time we heard anything about the Shooting Times Westerner series?


rl977

[morme@gte.net]

I just weighed 2 rounds

5.56 w/Sierra 77gn OTM (they used to use these, not I think they use the cannelured version, and a 6.8 SPC w/ 115gn OTM

5.56= 198gn x 300 rnds = 8.5 lbs
6.8 = 261gn x 300 = 11.2 lbs

228 rnds of 6.8 weighs the same as 300 5.56

Would I want to lug another 2.7 pounds? Having never served in the field, I am not the one to answer that.

btw, a wildcat 6.8 just won the Camp Perry High Power Rifle with an AR platform rifle.
He beat Tubb's space gun


"It ain't the plane, it's the pilot"
http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2008/08/bernosky-wins-camp-perry-high-power-championship/

[Linstrum]

The green-tip 62-grain penetrator bullets are now available on the civilian market as de-milled ammo components. About 6 months ago I bought from Hi-Tech 1000 of the green-tipped 62-grain 5.56mm bullets that are pulled-down from de-milled ammo. Since they fit the description above by MakeMineA10mm, yesterday I decided to chuck one up in my lathe and cut it open to see what was inside, and it had all the parts in the diagram provided by MakeMineA10mm. So, if anyone is interested, they are available from Hi-Tech for a decent price.

When I bought them I had no idea that they incorporated a deep-penetrating tip, I just wanted a 62 grain for longer distance performance for my Harrington & Richardson .223 Ultra Varmint rifle. Using 25 grains of Ramshot's Tac powder they do okay from the Ultra Varmint's 26-inch long 9-inch twist barrel out to 150 yards. I have not had the opportunity to work with them beyond 150 yards so I have no idea how they do beyond that.

How they work is kind of interesting, during World War Two the Russians supposedly had good success using a steel-tipped penetrator built along the same lines with a lead inertia core behind the steel tip. When the tip begins to penetrate armor the lead core extrudes forward from its inertia and squirts around the steel tip and it is theorized that the lead acts as a lubricant for the steel tip as it penetrates besides supplying additional energy to drive the tip in deeper. However it actually does it, it at least works!


rl993

[bruce drake]

SPC GALLAGHER, SHERRI J., USA 2396 161x

she dropped only 4 points out of 2400.

She shoots a 260 Remington out of a Tubb Space Gun.

Carl Hagar took second with a 2395 and he was shooting a 6mm HAGAR chambered AR.

Neither will ever be considered a viable option for a Service Rifle caliber.

Bruce

My other hobby is High Power Rifle shooting.

[Bob S]

The next generation "service rifle" may not even be a kinetic energy weapon ....

Resp'y,
Bob S.

[Linstrum]

Well, that is true, Ronald Reagan kick-started the defense industry again after it was gutted by Jimmy Carter, and as Reagan envisioned his "Star Wars" program it included some "Buck Rogers" non-kinetic weaponry. Could be the soldier of the future will carry a battery pack on his back, a set of solar cells on his helmet to keep his battery pack topped off, and a cable from his battery pack to his non-kinetic Tom Swift electric rifle.


rl994

[MakeMineA10mm]

It will be quite some time before they get directed-energy down to man-portable size, so don't order your blaster holsters too soon... :)

On the other hand, there's a lot of research money and effort being spent on directed energy tank-guns, naval-guns, and especially, Anti-Air/Missile systems (ground- and ship-based). The Isrealis are working hand-in-glove with us on this, and there are some test systems which have been test-deployed with Isrealis and USMC units. (Open source info.)

[82nd airborne]

There are units in the army (entire divisions) that you must shoot expert in order to not get reprimanded, if you just cant do it time after time, you get sent to a different unit.

[bruce drake]

:kidding:I bet you aren't talking about 82nd, 101st and the 10th Mountain ;) [smilie=1:

Bruce

[Multigunner]

The green-tip 62-grain penetrator bullets are now available on the civilian market as de-milled ammo components. About 6 months ago I bought from Hi-Tech 1000 of the green-tipped 62-grain 5.56mm bullets that are pulled-down from de-milled ammo. Since they fit the description above by MakeMineA10mm, yesterday I decided to chuck one up in my lathe and cut it open to see what was inside, and it had all the parts in the diagram provided by MakeMineA10mm. So, if anyone is interested, they are available from Hi-Tech for a decent price.

When I bought them I had no idea that they incorporated a deep-penetrating tip, I just wanted a 62 grain for longer distance performance for my Harrington & Richardson .223 Ultra Varmint rifle. Using 25 grains of Ramshot's Tac powder they do okay from the Ultra Varmint's 26-inch long 9-inch twist barrel out to 150 yards. I have not had the opportunity to work with them beyond 150 yards so I have no idea how they do beyond that.

How they work is kind of interesting, during World War Two the Russians supposedly had good success using a steel-tipped penetrator built along the same lines with a lead inertia core behind the steel tip. When the tip begins to penetrate armor the lead core extrudes forward from its inertia and squirts around the steel tip and it is theorized that the lead acts as a lubricant for the steel tip as it penetrates besides supplying additional energy to drive the tip in deeper. However it actually does it, it at least works!


rl993


The only Soviet steel core bullets I've used had a full length boat tailed steel core surrounded by a thin lead sheath between core and bullet.

The major problem with flat based steel core bullets had been a tendency to break in half if the bullet nit a steel plate at an angle, with bullet nose digging into the plate and twisting to perpendicular which put enormous side forces on the heavier reap end of the core.
The U S dealt with that by making the core itself boat tailed while the flat base of the bullet was formed by a copper alloy insert. The lessened mass at the rear of the core reduced likelyhood of core breakage.

Exposed lead or bullets with lead added at the nose were used in early attempts by the U S at creating a bullet that would reliably penetrate steel plates used as sniper or MG loopholes in trench warfare during WW1. The practice fell out of favor due to objections by the Germans that these appeared to be hunting soft points, which they were not.

I don't see how a penetrator/lead base combination could remain intact if it struck an angled plate.

[morme@gte.net]

Directed energy weapons at the troop level is something for the fairy godmother file. Until we invent disintegrator beams, nothing has the energy density of a chemical explosion.

a 5.56 bullet has 1767 joules (watt-second) of energy concentrated in a quarter inch.

The "hellbore" and "infinite repeater" cannons of the Bolo tanks of SciFi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29) seem the most viable. They shoot a small sliver of deuterium at near light speed, but use a laser to essentially create a vacuum path for the projectile to follow. Yet, it is still a projectile weapon.

[82nd airborne]

:kidding:I bet you aren't talking about 82nd, 101st and the 10th Mountain ;) [smilie=1:

Bruce

Oh my no, not those guys! They are terrible......wait, you tricked me, yeah I think it was them!

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

75th Inf, maybe? I have two sons, one in each of the basic sandboxes, and they tell me that.

Rich

[82nd airborne]

Rich,
I heard anyone from 75th just has to be able to do 2 girl pushups to stay in....

[Hamish]

This has been a highly informative thread, especially considering the thoughts my boy has on the 5.56 after rolling around in both sandboxes and flipsiding it with my shooting of the 7TCU for several years. *Several* years ago I can remember having conversations with other former military silhouette shooters on why the military had'nt gone to the 6,6.5,or 7tcu for specialized operations. As formed, the 7 was too long for the platform, wich several have overcome with shortening the cartridge slightly for suitable projectile weights, and the general thought then was not being able to push it fast enough for the military to consider it due to being an inside 250 yard cartridge. (Remember, this is quite a few years before we started hearing about the possibility of the 6.8.) General concensus was that the 6mm was suitable but not perfect and that the 6.5 seemed to be more in the ballpark as far as projectile weight versus ballistic suitability for the then (by us) perceived need for longer ranges. My own personal thought was that in the "military intelligence" tradition, no mid-wieght cartridge would be considered if there was any chance that someone would try to chamber a round in a 5.56. It continually amazes me what has been done with Mr. Stoners platform, but as has been said here a couple of times, when it comes to cartridge design, there really is nothing new under the sun. 6x47, 6TCU, whatever. My thinking is, screw the Geneva Convention, make the most nastiest, mangling, penetrating, dum-dum'iest ripper we can and get 'em to the troops, yesterday!

BTW, to the Gentlemen of this thread, and all those who have, and still are, standing in the door, my sincerest thanks. @(:^]#>:::

[82nd airborne]

I have made numerous ar's in 7TCU, and it actually seems more realiable than 5.56 because it has a gentler shoulder.

Im telling you though, 6x45 can launch an 80gr bullet at 2950 fps with no pressure signs. Try that with a .223. Remember this too, an 80g nosler is fairly high bc, my grandfather dropped a black buck and several other large game animals in excess of 300yds. Not much over 300, but still.
There will be a push at the end of the summer throughout the industry to make 6x45 more popular. Black hills and a few others are already making ammo. Socom is giving 6x45 another look this summer.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Directed energy weapons at the troop level is something for the fairy godmother file. Until we invent disintegrator beams, nothing has the energy density of a chemical explosion.

a 5.56 bullet has 1767 joules (watt-second) of energy concentrated in a quarter inch.

The "hellbore" and "infinite repeater" cannons of the Bolo tanks of SciFi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_%28tank%29) seem the most viable. They shoot a small sliver of deuterium at near light speed, but use a laser to essentially create a vacuum path for the projectile to follow. Yet, it is still a projectile weapon.

I agree completely. The next step is a projectile weapon replacing chemical propellant with an energy-based system, such as you mention or the magnetic cannon. It uses an electrically-generated magnetic field traveling along the barrel to magnetically "pull" the projectile along the bore getting some rediculous velocities (>5000 fps). It is the technology that killed the liquid-propellant canon, and if we just keep doing R&D without actually fielding a replacement "advanced technology" field gun, I'm sure something else viable will come along.

But none of this is shrinkable to man-portable size, so we're talking tank guns, field artillery, and naval artillery, or anti-air weapons are the only applications for these technologies for our lifetimes at least. We're going to see traditional-propellant service rifles for the rest of our lives for sure.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I have made numerous ar's in 7TCU, and it actually seems more realiable than 5.56 because it has a gentler shoulder.

Im telling you though, 6x45 can launch an 80gr bullet at 2950 fps with no pressure signs. Try that with a .223. Remember this too, an 80g nosler is fairly high bc, my grandfather dropped a black buck and several other large game animals in excess of 300yds. Not much over 300, but still.
There will be a push at the end of the summer throughout the industry to make 6x45 more popular. Black hills and a few others are already making ammo. Socom is giving 6x45 another look this summer.

Don't forget my offer to test one of your 300 BlkOut uppers. Got one back yet? :bigsmyl2:
:popcorn:

[82nd airborne]

Should have one back from tactical weapons here anyday now! They said that a month ago too though...

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Well would it not be interesting if the old Green Machine just decided the Germans and Russians had it right all the time with a short caliber 30 type cartrige in a semi auto rifle that was prone to work all the time...

[82nd airborne]

Greetings
Well would it not be interesting if the old Green Machine just decided the Germans and Russians had it right all the time with a short caliber 30 type cartrige in a semi auto rifle that was prone to work all the time...

Well, Socom is also testing .300 BLK.

[JIMinPHX]

There is a fundamental problem with caseless ammo, beyond the obvious fragility
of the system.
The brass case captures a large portion of the heat of firing and physically removes
the heat from the gun before it can soak into the chamber. The caseless ammo does
not do this. Testing showed that full auto guns overheated dramatically faster with
caseless ammo, plus the caseless ammo would cook off much easier. So even if you
could solve the cooling issue with the brass, it would need to be an open bolt gun.

I can think of a few ways that things of this nature can be dealt with, but I don't think that it is best to post them in an open forum. Military armaments R&D is best done in a closed environment.

[82nd airborne]

I personally think they should let us have beer in the combat zone again, then I wouldnt gripe about it so much. Now Im medically retired, so I drink beer when I feel like it, but still, thats just inhumane....

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

Eighty-Deuce,

the Rangers get to drink beer. They take it away from the 82nd. That's why you weren't getting any all that time...

Rich
Sua Sponte

[MakeMineA10mm]

I can think of a few ways that things of this nature can be dealt with, but I don't think that it is best to post them in an open forum. Military armaments R&D is best done in a closed environment.

The Germans already had it all figured out. I think the biggest struggle they had to overcome was exposure of the caseless ammo to moisture and still keeping it useful. (How many times can a troop go into the field and not get his ammo into a heavy moisture environment??? Like, ZERO? :-o ) Once they got the moisture thing figured out, it was a snap.

What stopped the adoption and issue of the G11 and it's caseless ammo was the economic impact of the reunification of Germany subsequent to the end of the cold war.

I predict if it wasn't for that, we'd have probably adopted the G11 as our infantry rifle. (We were looking HARD at it and testing it, but if Germany could pay for the fielding and long-term, wide-spread testing of issue to the whole German Army, that's better than any test & eval we could do at the proving grounds...)

They figured out the heat thing long ago. In fact, if you think about it, the rounds for the 120mm main gun in the Abrams are nearly caseless. (They use a consumable case and only a stub is left to eject after a round is fired.) Those, too, develop more heat than a normally-cased round (at least in the sense that there is not a brass case being removed/ejected to withdraw much of the heat with it from the weapon). In fact, I'd rather see a rifle designed around a consumable case, like the Abrams' rounds than true "caseless." Why? Because of the easier ability to extract a dud/bad round from the chamber (or for that matter, just unloading to make the weapon safe). Yes, the Germans had provided for this, but a true caseless round makes this more complicated/difficult/more-likely-to-fail option than a consumable case round that retains a cartridge case head (stub) with primer, rim, and extractor groove.

[miestro_jerry]

I was one of those soldiers that went to boot camp on the M14 and when being diploid to Vietnam, I had to become familiar with the M16 (not the A1), The M14 was too heavy, but if was good for long range. One of the issues that keeps coming up concerning the 5.56 NATO round and all of it's cousins. These bullets are very deadly and destructive at about 100 metres maybe further in a chest shot. The 7.62 NATO round just kill in a chest shot out to 300-500 metres.

This issue has surfaced again in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. There have Taliban who show off the scars from bullets that hit them at 100 to 150 yards. Even Guns and Ammo magazine has discussed this situation a few times. I have owned several M1As, some that were M14 rifles with an M1A receiver built from parts to the Ultra (not made in 25 or more years) and Super Match rifles.

I own a Pre Ban Colt AR15 HBAR NM that shoots like a dream, great for ground hogs and coyotes. I picked it up one week the ban, NIB for $600. I still have it. I own two DPMS AR15 rifles they are really nice to shoot.

Because of age, I can no longer shoot the ranges at Perry because my vision is starting fade a little. Last seaon, it took 2 shoot to make sure the coyote was dead at 350 meters.

I think the American military is going a different direction that people think, basic Infantry weapons, carbine - M4 and the M16, standard rifle M14 or some flavor of it, SubMachine gun MP5 and MP5K, the current M 249 SAW would probably work as well as the M240B Machine gun. This is just a mix of the concepts for infantry that has been used successfully in other wars. The M2HB has been around forever and it is no less effective than the day it was introduced.
War will dictates certain weapons will work better in some comabt situations than others. Please remember the standard rifle of WW II was the M1 Garand and it was very effective in all theaters of operations.

Some people told me that I was stuck in the 1950s with the technology of the M14, but the AR15/M16 was also developed in the 1950s and the military standard issue hasn't not changed that much.

Caseless ammo stuff just hasn't really matured to the point of being useful yet.

I think the military should dump the M9 and go to a SIG, a far better weapon in my view point, I own a P220 in 45 ACP and a P229 in 9mm. I have shot the Beretta pistols and the many different 1911a psitols, several of the DA S&W pistols and the Glocks. So far the best pistol I have shot and that I own is my SIG P220.

One thing that I find that is funny is during Vietnam, many revolver were issued to the troops, you may be limited to 5 or 6 shots, just learn to make them count.

In my unit, we had almost no draftees and 90% or better were shooting expert with the M14 and later the M16. It just takes practice to be that good.

Maybe new caliber will be adolpted, but it took an act of God to go from the 30-06 to the 308, then to the 223 rounds, except these should be in their military designation.

With all of these tests happening today, maybe the Army should dig out the tests from the 1970s when they were looking at a .17 caliber cartridge.

Anyway, when all else fails call in the artillery.

Jerry

[miestro_jerry]

I like 82 As suggestion, have beer for the troops, why not do one better and have hookers too. I think it was Chester Puller of the USMC who said that every squad bay should have a beer machine and a hooker.

Jerry

[Combat Diver]

Jerry,

The Army does issued the SIG 228 as the M11. The SIG 226 did finish the testing along with the Beretta and the 92 was chosen over the 226 as the M9 based on price. I've carried all three in Iraq along with the M1911 and M1911A1. My last two pistols that I carried in Iraq in 08' were a 226 and a 1916 dated Colt M1911.

MakeMineA10mm,

The 120mm smooth bore gun on the Abrams is also a German gun. Not just the ammo. Its a very accurate system. My first round down range at 2000m hit the 4x8" target dead center.

CD

[miestro_jerry]

SD,

In Vietnam, I carried a 1911 that was made by Remington, a S&W Model 10 and a Smith Model 15. Plus I had a Bull Dog 44.
If the U.S. had less of a history with the 45 ACP, I would have suggested another cartridge. There are still a few places on the planet that are using lesft overs from WW II and the 1950s. I remember in 1967 when the U.S. Navy had some training drill and they looked like some movies from WWII with BARs and Tommy Guns, along with 1903s. But the pistols were 1911s.

Jerry

[morme@gte.net]

The british conqured the world, except for Afganistan, with cruelty and rum


I like 82 As suggestion, have beer for the troops, why not do one better and have hookers too. I think it was Chester Puller of the USMC who said that every squad bay should have a beer machine and a hooker.

Jerry

[waksupi]

The british conqured the world, except for Afganistan, with cruelty and rum

Don't forget the opium.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Jerry,

The Army does issued the SIG 228 as the M11. The SIG 226 did finish the testing along with the Beretta and the 92 was chosen over the 226 as the M9 based on price. I've carried all three in Iraq along with the M1911 and M1911A1. My last two pistols that I carried in Iraq in 08' were a 226 and a 1916 dated Colt M1911.

MakeMineA10mm,

The 120mm smooth bore gun on the Abrams is also a German gun. Not just the ammo. Its a very accurate system. My first round down range at 2000m hit the 4x8" target dead center.

CD

CD - EXCELLENT point. I hadn't made that leap to connect up that it was a German 120mm gun that we use in the Abrams... They (Germans) obviously have the caseless and consumable-case thing all figured out, quite satisfactorily...


I must admit, today I took out a 5.56 to the range... :oops:

A budy had gotten the SIG-grey coat from Lauer and he graciously re-coated both or our Sig556s, so they'd both look a little more Swiss as well as get rid of the horribly mis-matched coloring that comes from the factory. They look as well as they shoot now, which is fantastically. Once we re-zeroed them, at closer range, we each shot a B27 silhouette at 200 yards. Both of us put 15 rounds into it. I had nine 10s with 5 Xs, and only 2 rounds in the 8-ring. His group was about the same size, but a little low, because we hadn't quite got the sights exactly dialed in on his at that point. Fantastic rifle... I may have to look into getting it converted to 6.8, or, since it will be a custom-job anyway, I might make it into my original cartridge, the 6.5 StG. It's just hard to do so, when the little thing shoots that cheap 223 ammo sooooo well.
:bigsmyl2:

[45r]

I would very much like to own a Sig 516 in 6x45.I read and article on it where they did an over the beach torture test on one in 5.56NATO,it passed with flying colors.It is said to be the AR-15 made to it's full potential.5/8 inch groups with a mini red dot is pretty good for a piston AR that won't break or jam even when tortured to extreme levels.If they make one in 6x45 I think it would be what I would want even if I had to pay for it and the ammo myself.

[DanWalker]

The 120mm smooth bore gun on the Abrams is also a German gun. Not just the ammo. Its a very accurate system. My first round down range at 2000m hit the 4x8" target dead center.

CD

Gun on the Abrams is German. Ammo is loaded by olin, or at least it was when I was shooting it.(1991-1998)
2000 meters is a chipshot for the tank. The REAL shooting starts at almost double that distance.
Were you just fam-firing as part of your training?
I agree that we've probably reached the peak of chemically powered projectiles.
The APFSDS-T round in the abrams steps out at 5000 fps.
Before anyone chastises me for giving out tech specs, please be aware that ALL this data is easily available to anyone that wants to look.
I had 2 eqyptian army officers draw me detailed pictures of the inside of the "secret" chobham armor on the tank, way back in 1992.

[Combat Diver]

DW,

These was during the Tank Commanders Control Course at Knox in 96'. My SF detachment went up there for the class as were training with the Kuwaiti Armor Bgds and had to familiarize ourselves with the tank. Ammo was the training practice round.

CD

[DanWalker]

WOW! Small world! I was teaching at Knox at that time.
So you guys were firing the training rounds, with the aluminum penetrators. I still think Olin made them as well, but I've been wrong before.

[82nd airborne]

I would very much like to own a Sig 516 in 6x45.I read and article on it where they did an over the beach torture test on one in 5.56NATO,it passed with flying colors.It is said to be the AR-15 made to it's full potential.5/8 inch groups with a mini red dot is pretty good for a piston AR that won't break or jam even when tortured to extreme levels.If they make one in 6x45 I think it would be what I would want even if I had to pay for it and the ammo myself.

Im converting a sig 552 over to .300 blk and to 6x45 right now.

[45r]

Im converting a sig 552 over to .300 blk and to 6x45 right now.

Have you seen the new Sig 516,I read an article in Guns and Ammo's Book of the AR-15 and it looks just like a AR except for the piston system.I didn't know Sig came out with a AR-16 untill I got the magazine.The rifle has shot 30,000 rounds without a single malfunction even after a very hard testing.It is starting to show up for around 1370,thats not bad for a piston AR of Sig quality.Most piston AR's that can shoot 3/4 MOA are way expensive.The 516 might be better than the 556,it's stroke is shorter with no tube and easy to keep clean.It looks like the Sig 516 piston system would work on any AR-15.Everything is AR except for that.One in 6x45 or one of the 6mm wildcats off the 6.8 would be pretty cool.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Have you seen the new Sig 516,I read an article in Guns and Ammo's Book of the AR-15 and it looks just like a AR except for the piston system.I didn't know Sig came out with a AR-16 untill I got the magazine.The rifle has shot 30,000 rounds without a single malfunction even after a very hard testing.It is starting to show up for around 1370,thats not bad for a piston AR of Sig quality.Most piston AR's that can shoot 3/4 MOA are way expensive.The 516 might be better than the 556,it's stroke is shorter with no tube and easy to keep clean.It looks like the Sig 516 piston system would work on any AR-15.Everything is AR except for that.One in 6x45 or one of the 6mm wildcats off the 6.8 would be pretty cool.

I think it all depends on whether one likes the piston-version AR or the Kalashnikov-style action better. The 556 is based on the 550/551 and is therefore a very-well-made and refined-in-certain-areas Kalashnikov action. The 516, obviously, is the Stoner system converted to piston-driven. Here in America, we tend to dote on the Stoner/AR system and there are unquestionably many, many variations and accessories made for it. It's also generally cheaper than a high-end AK, especially if one builds his AR himself. However, as a reliable operating system, I think the Kalashnikov beats it.

The best of all, in my opinion, would be the Nikonov-designed AN-94, which kept the reliability of the AK, but incorporated improvements to balance the recoil of the action to reduce recoil, while still maintaining a reasonable weight. This is the rifle I was referring to above when I pointed out that there are better assault rifles out there than the AK. Unfortunately, the Abakan (what the AN-94 is being called) is not available in full-auto (or any other, AFAIK) form here in the U.S., so of what is left, and considering semi-auto only availability, I'll take the Sig 550/551/556 design over all others currently available.

Doesn't mean I don't have or like ARs. In fact, I have more of them than Sigs, and I like them just fine, but the Sig is pretty hard to beat, especially the trigger pull, and I bet reliability would be at least on par with a piston-driven AR, if not better.

[morme@gte.net]

Read this article
http://world.guns.ru/assault/rus/an-94-abakan-e.html

the rifle seems overly complicated, and very user unfriendly.

Note the writer says "Unlike the more common designs, like the Russian Kalashnikov or American M16 rifles and others, the AN-94 internals are not "user friendly", and it took weeks, if not months, to get used to this rifle, its assembly / disassembly and maintenance procedures. It is also more expensive to made and maintain. The shape of the pistol grip, and the inclined from the vertical plane magazine are way from being comfortable. The rear diopter sight has small apertures, not protected from dirt, and is hard to clean in the battle conditions. It also has sharp edges and can snag in the clothes or make a scratches on the skin when handled roughly.... The folding butt interferes with the trigger when folded, and the fire selector, which is separated from the safety, is hard to operate, especially when wet. "

My guess is that failures will be difficult to deal with.

You can't even fire it if the stock is folded. It would seem that it is like a Microsoft product. Wait until rev 2 or 3 before it becomes "ok".

One wonders if the designer (rather well known) actually used the rifle in the field.

I've taught 13 year old girls how to take apart an AR-15 and put it back together (basic field stripping for cleaning, not barrel removal etc), in an afternoon shooting session. This includes stripping the bolt carrier. Simplicity is the hallmark of a good design. The Germans made the first assault rifle with the Sturmgewehr 44, and the joke is that Mikhail Kalashnikov took one and threw away half the parts to make the AK.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Read this article
You can't even fire it if the stock is folded. It would seem that it is like a Microsoft product. Wait until rev 2 or 3 before it becomes "ok".

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Sounds familiar doesn't it? M-16 in the mid-60s??

Also, several of the bad points are not from direct experience. They're things he heard from reliable sources. I don't disagree that they're true, but then there's these points from the same article:


At the present time the AN-94 is considered as the "professionals' choice", and isused in limited numbers by the elite forces of the Russian Army, police and Internal Affairs Ministry.

The trained professional warrior can use the 2-rounds burst capability of AN-94 to the great degree of success, but prior to this, a lot of time and resources should be spent to train this professional soldier to use AN-94 effectively.

The two rounds bursts are fired at very high rate of fire, and a trained shooter can make a single hole in the target at 100 meters in this mode.This allows for significant increase in lethality, stopping power and body armour penetration over the single shot mode, with the same "singles hot" accuracy.

And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN-94:

The rear peep sight is a noted improvement over the standard Kalashnikov crude notch and post. The compound muzzle shroud design is intended to significantly reduce weapon report and muzzle flash. The AN-94 design is stated to be vastly more accurate than the AK-74M.

I guess opinions vary. [smilie=l:

Also, I really like the off-set magazine. One of my complaints about the long 30-rd. AK mags is that their length get in my support-arm's way, and it looks like the Abakan's off-set mag helps that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Russian_AN-94_FSB.jpg

I'd really, really like to get my hands on one to test.

[45r]

The AK's are reliable but don't shoot accurate enough for me.The Sig 516 has the accuracy and won't fail to shoot.It can use a scope and other optics far better than most AK rifles.What I like the most is it isn't too expensive.I've never got a piston gun because they want too much and no one has come out with a 6mm.With all the AR platforms out there it surprises me that somebody hasn't brought out an affordable 6mm since BenchRest,Highpower and other competitive shooting events are dominated by the 6mm's(6ppc,6MOA,6XC,etc).The only 6mm available from a mainstream AR maker is Les Baer's 6x45.I'd get one of those except 2200 bucks seems a little high to me,I'd rather get a Sig 516 for around 1300 bucks and have it converted to a 6mm for a couple hundred bucks more.

[Combat Diver]

Also, I really like the off-set magazine. One of my complaints about the long 30-rd. AK mags is that their length get in my support-arm's way, and it looks like the Abakan's off-set mag helps that.

Unless your left handed!!!!!!!!! One solution creates another problem.

CD

[82nd airborne]

Have you seen the new Sig 516,I read an article in Guns and Ammo's Book of the AR-15 and it looks just like a AR except for the piston system.I didn't know Sig came out with a AR-16 untill I got the magazine.The rifle has shot 30,000 rounds without a single malfunction even after a very hard testing.It is starting to show up for around 1370,thats not bad for a piston AR of Sig quality.Most piston AR's that can shoot 3/4 MOA are way expensive.The 516 might be better than the 556,it's stroke is shorter with no tube and easy to keep clean.It looks like the Sig 516 piston system would work on any AR-15.Everything is AR except for that.One in 6x45 or one of the 6mm wildcats off the 6.8 would be pretty cool.

yessir, just customized a trigger group on one.

[MakeMineA10mm]

The AK's are reliable but don't shoot accurate enough for me.

That's why you should check out the SIG version of the AK (550/551/556). Mine, shooting surplus M193, put 9 out of 15 shots in the 10-ring (w/ 4 Xs) of a B27 silhouette (10-ring about the size of a 3x5 card) at 200 yards last week, and that was with iron sights and my old eyes that need bifocals now... My buddy's would have done the same (group size was almost identical), if not for his sights needing adjusted up just a hair. Using the ACOG, we were getting 10 out of 10 in the 10 ring at 200 yards. Not bad for an AK, shooting crappy blasting ammo, IMO.

Can you get more accurate with something more optimized for target-grade accuracy? Sure. White Oak Armament builds the most accurate ARs there are, only about 40 miles from me, but I'd not take one of those into combat either... The trigger on the SIG 550-556 series is just amazing. Can't believe a combat gun has that good of a trigger in it!


Originally posted by Combat Diver
Unless your left handed!!!!!!!!! One solution creates another problem.

You're absolutely correct, not to mention taking those left hard-corners, even being right-handed...

Still, I'd like to play with one for a year or so. Might change my mind, depending on what crops up (like the problems pointed out above) or the complexity being sensitive or breakable, but one of the things that always impressed me about the MP44/StG44 is it's balance of weight, recoil and cyclic rate to give such control on full auto. The thing that stinks on the MP44 series is that the power of the cartridge vs. the weight leaves plenty of room for improvement, and the Abakan is one of a small handful of weapons that addresses this. I'm surprised more military weapons designers don't pay more attention to this...

[45r]

yessir, just customized a trigger group on one.

What do you think about the 516,is it as good as they say.Can they be converted to 6x45,Constuctors 6x41,or White Oaks 6WOA without breaking the bank.

[82nd airborne]

I didnt go out and shoot it alot or anything, but my first impresssion was that it wasnt much of an improvement over a custom AR.