Latest Military Caliber Craze

[StarMetal]

How many of you fellows are interested in this? I'll write alittle about what's going on around the world in military small arms calibers and what the U.S. thinking has been if you are interested.

Joe

[Scrounger]

How many of you fellows are interested in this? I'll write alittle about what's going on around the world in military small arms calibers and what the U.S. thinking has been if you are interested.

Joe

That will be much better than most of the stuff that gets posted. IMO

[StarMetal]

Okay Art, thanks

Well it has become quite apparent that the U.S. is headed in the opposite direction of Russia and China when it come to assault -rifle ammunition. The U.S. troops are looking for improved terminal performance on thin-bodied terrorist, Russia and China seek inhanced penetration.

As an example for the last six years the main emphasis in Russia small arms ammo has been enhancing penetration to defeat modern body armor. This has been accomplished by introducing 5.45x39 loads offering enhanced penetration (7N10) and armor-piercing (7N22) performance. The 7N10 is said to be able to penetrate a 16mm thick steel plate at 100 meters and the 7N22 a 6mm thick steel plate at 250 meters.

China has just fielded an entirely new round with the 5.8x42mm intended to be a true replace for not only the aging 7.62x39mm but also for the 7.62x54R. Now that later one is interesting to me because the new 5.8x42mm is puny compared to the 7.62x54R..hell it's about the size of a 223. To me you can't beat big block horsepower with a smallblock.

The standard Chinese DBP87 ball round drives a 64 gr, .236 diameter FMJBT (with a 22.6 gr AP core) at 3050 fps from a Type 95 assault rifle's 18.2 inch barrel. China claims this load is able to penetrate a 10mm thick hardened steel plate at 310 meters and a 3.5mm hardened steel plate at 700 meters. In addition there is a heavy ball loading for use in general purpose machine guns and a load for sniper use. With the threat of American troops lavishly equipped with modern body armor on the horizon, the PLA's 5.8x42mm offeres substantial penetration.

Joe

[StarMetal]

Currently the U.S. forces are beginning to move away from the 5.56 62 gr M855 with it steel penetrator. Lack luster terminal performance has prompted a move toward the heavier MK262 Mod 1.

Originally developed for use in MK12 sniper rifles, this 5.56 ammo is loaded (get this guys) with 77 grain Sierra OTM (open tip match) projectiles. While not offering the penetration of the M855, the MK262 Mod 1 is not only substantially more accurate, it also offers improved terminal performance. Yeah, it's a varmint round. Special Forces units are using a Hornady 75 grain OTM load and this load drives a heavy projectile at a relatively high velocity even from a 14 inch barrel.

Offering even better terminal performance is the 6.8x43 mm SPC. This intermediate cartridge initially stirred a great deal of interest. Hornady just recently introduced a 110 grain V-Max bullet for it. Not to be forgotten (and my favorite for the AR15) is the 6.5 Grendel. Both this rounds offer a step up in performance from the 5.56.

Joe

[G50-70]

Joe. I find this a very interesting topic. Thanks for posting it.

Gary

[mike in co]

and sierra wasnt the only bullet being looked at.....you should have tried to buy 77 bergers a year ago....they had a single large order to fill....uncle who ?

and notice the politically correct name for the bullet. the US was taken to the carpet over the use of 175/168 hp ammo for sniping. the current round is named a open tip match.......please note that from the begining sierra has claimed match bullets should not be used for hunting....hmmmmmmm

[waksupi]

Keep it coming, Joe.

[versifier]

Two-legged varmints. Hmmm. Is there an engineer out there who can tell me why the tiny little bullets in the 5.7 are supposedly able to penetrate body armor? Is it that the pointy little tip pushes the fibers aside? :confused:

[357tex]

How many of you fellows are interested in this? I'll write alittle about what's going on around the world in military small arms calibers and what the U.S. thinking has been if you are interested.

Joe
Educate us it does intertest me.

[Bret4207]

I read somewhere recently that the alleged ban on soft point military rounds was no longer in effect. There was a bit of discussion on this but I forget where. Personally I'd bet there's plenty we could do with the standard 223 case to make it more effective. Of course, there were probably old Corp Marines saying that about the 6mm Lee Navy too....

[StarMetal]

Okay I have the pictures of all the rounds I spoke of. First let me say that the Geneva rules for warfare are just about gone and too many people get the impression that they apply to ALL wars. Not so. This current war going on has no damn rules for one thing, why do you think we're using hollow points over there? Second the Demoncrats played on the people's stupidity in this country using this incorrect information, telling folks that we were breaking the Geneva rules...********..all a pack of damn Demoncrat lies...not Republican. Anyways onto the picture. In the second and smaller picture notice the middle round which is Chinese and said to replace even the 7.62x54R...and again in John Waynes words: "Not Hardly"

Joehttp://www.hunt101.com/watermark.php?file=500/7385MilitaryRound-med.jpg

http://www.hunt101.com/watermark.php?file=500/7385MilitaryRounds1-med.jpg

[StarMetal]

Two-legged varmints. Hmmm. Is there an engineer out there who can tell me why the tiny little bullets in the 5.7 are supposedly able to penetrate body armor? Is it that the pointy little tip pushes the fibers aside? :confused:

The name of penetration, for one thing, is velocity. As I've often stated before back in the old days the Army used zinc bullets at high velocity to test armor. Apparently zinc was cheaper then an actually AP bullet,but goes to show what a basically compared to AP round soft alloy can do. Once again I tell the story of a time back in my high school days where a bunch of were testing our rifle out on a railroad "fishplate" or to some known as the tie plate the rail sets on and the spikes are driven through the corresponding holes in them. These are large, you all have seen them and they are thick too. They are iron not hardened steel. Anyways the rifles were 222, 30-30, 7x57 mauser, and 30-06....all with either hunting hollow points or soft tips. First the 30-30 didn't go through the plate...damn near, but not all the way. The biggest hole through the plate was made by a 50 gr 222 bullet, yup. Simply because of the higher velocity then the other rounds.

Joe

[Bret4207]

I believe Ackleys books had steel plate tests or maybe it was Hatchers. Maybe both with my steel trap memory. At any rate there were photos of 17 cal wildcats punching through armor plate. Velocity was the key. But these days I'd think they'd consider section density and velocity. Since I don't follow much of this stuff anymore (technology stopped with the M16-A2 for me) it's interesting seeing what they dream up.

[JohnH]

Ain't nothin' comes out that hole in the steel but spall. It is a trick in a way...bullet impacts at high speed and as it collaspes on itself heats up the metal in the immediate area, if enough heat is created, you get a hole. Don't want to be on the other side of that, spall is most decidedly deadly, but there ain't no projectile passin' through.

PS.... "Note to self, these guys prolly already knew that and think you're kinda slow......."

[StarMetal]

JohnH

That's true, but that is one reason those bullets meant to penetrate certain armor are long for their caliber size. The reason is while the bullet is melting away itself while melting the steel, is to make sure there is enough bullet to keep the process going until the armor is penetrated.

Joe

[StarMetal]

and sierra wasnt the only bullet being looked at.....you should have tried to buy 77 bergers a year ago....they had a single large order to fill....uncle who ?

and notice the politically correct name for the bullet. the US was taken to the carpet over the use of 175/168 hp ammo for sniping. the current round is named a open tip match.......please note that from the begining sierra has claimed match bullets should not be used for hunting....hmmmmmmm

It's interesting that Mike brings this up because I remember Sierra saying that myself. Let me address this. I don't know if you all know what jacket requirement are to make an accurate bullet. The requirement is concentricity. The more concentric the jacket of a bullet is, the easier it is to make it accurate, and concentricity is easier to maintain in a thin jacket than in a thick jacket. Jacket shape is also important: the less conplex the shape of the jacket is, the easier it is to keep it concentric. This is why match grade bullets built to achieve the highest possible level of accuracy and ballistic efficiency have relatively thin, minium tapered jackets with no mechanical means of preventing lead core slippage during expansion.

Wheres Sierra and Nosler advise against use of their match bullets on game, Hornady recommends the A-Max for long range shooting of light, thin skinned game.

There you go Mike, so match bullets do have a hunting application, even if Sierra or Nosler say no.

Joe

[Blackwater]

Starmetal, great thread, and thanks for keeping us up on all this. Two questions:

1. How's the new 6.8 doing in combat, if you have info on that; and

2. Penetration of metal is basically about heat, is it not? By that, a sharp, high temp insensitive alloy (hardened steel AP insert) with pointy tip, focuses all its energy on a tiny point, which creates intense heat at that point, which melts the "receiving" target metal/material, and as it melts, as you stated, there has to be enough butt on it to KEEP melting and penetrating for it to go all the way through the target, right? I think that's how those ultra long DU "darts" for the M1-A1 Abrams smoothbore cannon operate isn't it? Not being a machinist, I'm always a bit enthralled at how quickly heat can be generated by such means.

[StarMetal]

I don't have any official information on how the 6.8 is doing I have heard Special Ops are using it to some degree. It has to be a more potent round that the 5.56 from close to mid range distances. In alot of people's opinion the 6.5 Gredel is a better round, but because big ass Remington got behind the 6.8 it gets more press.

Joe

[Fireball 57]

Starmetal: In Vietnam, the 5.56mm was not a stellar cartridge. If four rounds in the chest and abdomen, of this caliber fails to soften the tongue of a North Vietname officer while being beaten and interrogated by a South Korean Marine, limitted bleeding and no exit wounds then, I would say it is abmismal. How many wounded enemy combatants are still in the battle fighting because of the ill-advised 5.56mm? Col. Gilquest, of the Civilian Marksmanship Program, knows where a LARGE warehouse of M-14's exists in Thailand. Even the 243 cal. could do the job at 600 yards. :idea:

[StarMetal]

Fortunately I didn't have to do time in Nam, but I have alot of relatives and friends that did. I got various reports back from them on the M16 in the field. They followed a pattern, that is 80 percent of the time super destructive wounds and instant kills. Somewhere somehow many years later a friend I worked with at an oil refinery got ahold of Vietnam would book full of photos of actual wounds, mostly the Cong and a few Americans. The damage done by the 5.56 was horrific to say the least. That's all I'm saying about it. You all can think what you want about it. Let me say that ANY caliber round fails to kill sometime. I''ll give one verified example of a 308 failure. A prisoner was being interogated, somehow they decided to shoot him, it was from the side with an M14 and armor piercing ammo. The shot was at the prisoners right jaw bone. Upon the shot the bullet turned 90 degrees down after hitting the jaw bone and it went through his shoulder and come out his armpit. Didn't kill him, but probably made him wish it did. Damn the whole world armies use a similar round to the 5.56. Probably 50 years from now the young shooters will be pissed off with whatever they have and talk about how good the M16 and the 5.56 was just like alot of us do about the Garand with it's 30-06 and the M14 with it's 308.

Joe

[Four Fingers of Death]

And the 168Gn Sierra is a legal bullet under this convention as it was shown to not expand anymore than a FMJ, but was accuracy enhancing only. I think the Geneva convention deals with treatment of PWs mostly.

[13Echo]

The Geneva Convention was mainly about treatment of prisoners. There is a different convention that covers weapons or bullets purposely designed to cause an excess of suffereing. Bullets specifically designed to cause excessive suffereing (wounding) were banned. Basically it was interpreted to ban soft pointed bullets or bullets designed to expand. If your match hollowpoint doesn't expand it would be OK even though it isn't full metal jacketed. The original bullet for the M16 wasn't purposely designed to expand and so it was OK despite the fact that it tumbled in tissue and broke into several pieces producing terrible wounds at close ranges. Furthermore the rules only apply to other signatores to the conventions and do not cover irregular forces or law enforcement. As far as wounds produced the original M-16 bullet at relatively close range (200yds) made terrible wounds, the M-14 made neat holes as did the AK-47. The current projectiles for the M16 are designed to penetrate light armor and make nice, neat holes, unless they tumble, but even then they don't make the mess the earlier bullet did. I guess the rule is if you are gong to make nice neat holes a bigger hole is better.

Jerry Liles
Maj MC ret

[StarMetal]

From what I understand first off boattailed bullets tend to tumble in flesh. I also heard that the original 55 gr FMJ as designed to fragment. I've shot alot of small game with issue Nam 55 gr bullets and they are very explosive. The rifling in original M16's isn't real shallow and they cut into the jacket pretty deep further weakening it. So the total combination of things just mentioned leave a bullet that does alot of damage...BUT not 100 percent of the time.

Joe

[versifier]

Hmmm again. If velocity is the key to penetration of armor, why is the 5.7 said to be effective? It's basically just a .22mag with a real primer, no? :confused:
I have also read and heard that a dead enemy soldier puts one out of action, but a wounded enemy puts not only one out of it, but also those who have to carry and treat him, tying up more personnel and resources. :-|
Thoughts on the points, gents?

[StarMetal]

Velocity is ONE of the factor to armor penetration, not the only one. I haven't read up on that 5.7, but I never said it was an armor penetrator....on the other hand it might penetrate body armor. Want to know something interesting. The Czech standard ball loaded 7.62x25 round will defeat most body armor!!!!! So if that little 5.7 is whizzing that bullet along pretty fast I don't doubt it would penetrate pretty good for it's dimunitive size.

Joe

[13Echo]

Velocity, sectional density, cross sectional area, construction of the bullet are all important in penetration. An extreme case is the discarding sabot fin stabilized tank round which is a rod of tungsten carbide or uranium. High velocity, heavy, small cross sectional area and high sectional density. A needle versus a hammer. The current crop of 5.56mm bullets are long and slender and heavy, and hard - they penetrate light armor such as body armor very effectively, but, by the same token, they punch nice neat small holes in flesh.
Jerry Liles

[versifier]

You know, the thing I like best about this forum is that I actually learn things from it. Thank you all for your patience and willingness to share what you know.

[Blackwater]

My understanding of Eugene Stoner's original concept of the M-16 is that he purposely designed the bullet and original rifling twist so that the bullet was only marginally stable in flight, and upon hitting any resistance (the target hopefully), the least little influence that wasn't received concentrically would make the bullet tumble. Thus, the early reports of horrible wounds produced by the early guns.

Then the military decided marginally stable bullets just didn't help accuracy, and wedded to old concepts of marksmanship, they increased the twist of the barrels of their newly adopted rifles, and predictably, the heavily constructed FMJBT's failed to tumble as Stoner originally intended, thus reducing the actual "stopping power" that Stoner had built into his little rifle.

Now they're shooting the 62 grain AP stuff, which necessitated going to an even faster twist, again with predictable results that contrast with Stoner's original design.

There's some evidence that Stoner designed his M-16 as an "assault rifle" as opposed to a larger caliber "battle rifle" as a shorter ranged rifle that would allow a soldier to carry more ammo, and yet still be effective due to tumbling bullets, and when the Powers That Be un-did his tumbling bullet factor he designed into the package, he wasn't exactly pleased, and tried to get those Powers to understand what they were doing and what would result.

Stoner's little gun has suffered a lot at the press's hands, what with stories lamenting its aleged functioning problems, which were due to the switch to heavily calcium coated ball powder instead of the extruded powder originally loaded in its ctgs. It's not difficult, given some understanding of how bureacracies work, and the military's proceedure for evaluating and "improving" submitted designs IS a bureacracy, to swallow this story of Stoner's original intent and subsequent alteration of some critical issues and specs of the gun.

I've loved and been pleased with all the AR-15's I've owned, and with all those I've shot that belonged to friends. No longer in the military, I can load whatever I dang well please since no conventions hamper my personal ammo selections. I'll normally shoot most any expanding bullet, and feel fairly good about it so long as the ammo functions reliably and is accurate. I'm essentially an old quail hunter who grew up shooting SxS doubleguns, so it's taken me a long time to get completely comfortable with that full pistol grip, but it's a heck of a rifle, IMO. Like all things mechanical, it's just had its growing pains along the way.

Starmetal, does this story of Stoner's original intent jive pretty well with your understanding of the original intent & design, and subsequent changes that were made for various reasons as it became our service rifle?

[StarMetal]

Well yes and no. I don't think anyone would design a gun and ammo to purposely tumble. Concider most were conceived of as full auto and full auto eats rifling up fast and if it was designed to tumble because the twist was marginal then what with the rifling starting to disappear. No sir the military does want an accurate gun. It was the Air Force that discovered the original bullet for the 5.56 was marginallly spun and the rifling twist was immediately changed to 1 in 12. Funny thing is nobody can come up with proof or evidence of the slower twist. There was a bunch of things wrong with the beginning of the M16. First major road blocks were political 100 percent. Second was the ammo. As you mentioned the ball powder had WAAAAY too much calcium in it and for those of you that wonder what it's use is in ball powder, it was for one thing to extend the shelf life. Next was the brass casings were annealed right, this helped the extractor to pull through the rim. Then there's the issue that the secretary of defense didn't want the chambers and bores chromed , which proved to be a disaster. You've all heard the stories of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their rifles trying to get a stuck case out. Surprising in all the years since Vietnam has been over I've only met one man that could substanciate that happening. Not alot of soldiers were found in that situation I think. The M16 isn't exactly what Stoner wanted produced and he did design a round for it, which got changed. I've heard the original powder for the 5.56 was stick powder too, which they did load alot of.

You'll never convince generations that cut their teeth on massive powerful rounds such as the 30-06 that smaller rounds can get the job done. Yeah, every soldier would love to have the flat shooting and power of 300 Weatherby magnum which has majical ammo that light as a feather and 5000 rounds would barely fill your pockets in addition to 22 Hornet level recoil. Isn't ever going to happen.

The M14 is a great rifle...but it wasn't for Vietnam. Actually to tell you the truth the best rifle seemed to be the AK 47.

Joe

[floodgate]

Joe

"Well yes and no. I don't think anyone would design a gun and ammo to purposely tumble."

Well, I've read several places that the Mark VII bullet for the Redcoat's .303 WAS so designed, with an aluminum or fiber filler inside the pointed nose to make it VERY tail-heavy, so once it entered flesh and tipped a bit, it would start to "windmill" and really tear things up.

The problem with the calcium-doped ammo, as I recall from the "Rifleman's" report at the time, was that a contract lot made in Australia in a hurry to help fill the rapid buildup to the supply lines was the culprit. Also, the standard US load showed reduced velocity, taking it below the stability threshhold, in cold-weather tests in Alaska.

I was around when Eugene Stoner was still working for Fairchild - having bombed out of the aircraft and then the aerial camera business, were looking for another source of military contracts, so they grubstaked him. Yes he was LOUDLY unhappy with what the military did with his system; he said the AR15 was nowhere near ready to go, and was developing the modular Stoner-63, to be set up as anything from an assault rifle to a medium machine gun. And the AR-10 was intended as the "serious" rifle for more traditional uses.

And yes, the AK-47 is one of the all-time great designs from a purely practical and functional point of view. Many years ago, the NRA got Stoner and Kalashnikov together at one of their annual meetings; I sure wish I'd been a "fly on the wall" to hear those two "greats" swapping stories; my Russian was almost good enough at that time.

I love the M-14, but it was probably a pretty poor choice as a short-range jungle gun.

All hearsay, of course; I wasn't there myself in any combat capacity, just a civilian "tech-spook", and only for a month or so.

floodgate

[StarMetal]

Floodgate

In response to that Mark VII bullet. What I meant was the original M16 Stoner idea WASN'T to make a barrel rifling/bullet combination that tumbled all the ammo all the time. The bullet you speak of was special application, whereas they soldier could go back to the standard issue round with norma performance.

Joe

[mike in co]

stoner selected a powder that performed in his rifle, the lack of military intelligence and politics let to the use of surplus powder on hand to cut cost, which inturn lead to the cost of lives. the removal of his designed chrome lining mixed with the wrong powder led to the poor performance of the m16.
...never heard of the twist issue....what was the original deign twist ???
12 was all i ever heard(so what).......then the jump to 7 for the longer tracer that did not do well in the 1/12....this whole idea of limited stability for the 55 in a 1/12 seems stange to me. i shoot 52 match from a 1/14(223), but my 222 was a 1/12 that shot 45-55's......but not as fast as a 223 ????

[Scrounger]

stoner selected a powder that performed in his rifle, the lack of military intelligence and politics let to the use of surplus powder on hand to cut cost, which inturn lead to the cost of lives. the removal of his designed chrome lining mixed with the wrong powder led to the poor performance of the m16.
...never heard of the twist issue....what was the original deign twist ???
12 was all i ever heard(so what).......then the jump to 7 for the longer tracer that did not do well in the 1/12....this whole idea of limited stability for the 55 in a 1/12 seems stange to me. i shoot 52 match from a 1/14(223), but my 222 was a 1/12 that shot 45-55's......but not as fast as a 223 ????

Most likely the original twist was 1 in 14, the same as Remington, etc, were using in .222 and .22-250. Apparently they too had problems stabilizing the military ammo, for sometime in the late sixties there was a closeout sale of Remington 700s in .223 with a 1 in 14 twist; they were re-introduced with a 1 in 12 twist. I bought a couple of those rifles for the princely price of $79.95! Also bought a couple of the discontinued Remington 660s in .350 Magnum with the laminated stocks about that time for that same price. Needless to say, I didn't have the sense to hang on to any of them, they were quickly gone for little or no profit. I still cry a lot about that. I did come into one of those .223s about 25 years later and it was a superior lead shooter over the 1 in 12 or 1 in 10 twists.

[StarMetal]

Mike

There is alot of difference between a 52 gr match bullet today and the original issue 55 gr FMJ of the Nam era. The original ArmaLite drawing of the first bullet had a 7-caliber ogive and a 9-degree boattail. The only changes made by Stoner were a shortening of the boattail and the cylindrical bearing length of the bullet to reduce it's weight in conformance with the 55 gr specification. Stoner's cartridge was known as the "222 special". One of the cartridge designs submitted was the "Springfield 224" which later went on to become the 222 Remington magnum.

Colt's first 18,000 AR15 barrels was subcontracted out to Winchester who made the broach cut barrel. Later when Colt was able to produce the barrel they button rifled them.

Here's something for the M14 fans. There was a test of "optimum platoon" trials done by the Combat Development Expriementation Center. The end findings was with the first bipod-equipped ArmaLite AR-15's had indicated that a 5 to 7 man squad armed with a light weight rifle, high velocity, like the Armalite AR15, would have greater hit and kill potential then 11 men equipped with the M14.

Joe

[floodgate]

Joe:

Nope. The Mark VII WAS the new standard bullet; it was the first spitzer bullet for the Lee-Enfields. Per E. G. B. Reynolds' book, "The Lee-Enfield Rifle" the Mark VII with 174gr. sharp-pointed bullet was introduced in 1910 to replace the earlier Mark VI with its 215-gr. cupro-nickel jacketed round-nose, and was in use through WW I and WW II. Allee-samee the 150-gr. Spitzer .30-'06 vs. the 220-gr. RN .30-'03 in the U.S., four years earlier, but ours wasn't deliberately unbalanced. They\ Brits claimed the aft c.g. improved accuracy; but any disparity between center-of-gravity and center-of-form increases the tendency to tumble if / when the bullet tips.

floodgate