+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" (/showthread.php?tid=6789)
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Tony Williams - 04-22-2014
stanc Wrote:IMO, a new Squad Common Cartridge/General Purpose Cartridge does not need to equal or exceed M80 ballistics, it just needs to provide the same engagement range capability. It seems to me that what's important is hit probability, not any specific trajectory, as indicated by use of the L129A1 and Mk48 weapons.
Yes, as I've mentioned before (in this thread IIRC, but possibly in another - there are so many of them I find it hard to keep track), I regard hit probability as being the key comparator within ballistics, but that does involve trajectory, flight time and wind-bucking qualities. It is not necessary to match the 7.62mm's retained energy, particularly since a smaller-diameter bullet needs less energy to achieve the same penetration.
Quote:My understanding is the 6.5 GPC prototype (second from left, in the photo below) delivers approximately the same muzzle velocity from a 16" barrel as 6.5 Grendel (center, below) from a 24" barrel. These two cartridges would seem to be perfectly suited to making your case.
![[Image: 11037565314_a3fca24b43_z.jpg]](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2808/11037565314_a3fca24b43_z.jpg)
Can you refresh my memory as to where that one came from, please?
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - LRRPF52 - 04-22-2014
What if you could increase hit probability, reduce wind deflection & trajectory, with a lighter projectile that has way less recoil, and exceed M80 or 7.62x54R terminal energy beyond 300yds all in the same ball of wax?
Oh yeah, we've kicked that horse before.
130gr 6.5mm .570 G1 BC, 2600fps
Code:
Range Velocity Energy Trajectory TOF Drift
(yards) (fps) (ft-lb) (MILS) (sec) (MILS)
0 2600 1951 0.00 0.0000 0.00
[B]100 2444[/B] 1724 0.00 0.1190 -0.18
200 2294 1519 -0.60 0.2457 -0.37
[B]300 [/B] 2149 [B]1333[/B] -1.41 0.3808 -0.57
400 2009 1165 -2.34 0.5252 -0.78
500 1875 1015 -3.38 0.6797 -1.01
600 1747 881 -4.53 0.8454 -1.25
700 1626 763 -5.80 1.0234 -1.51
800 1512 660 -7.22 1.2148 -1.78
900 1407 572 -8.78 1.4205 -2.08
1000 1312 497 -10.53 1.6414 -2.39
1100 1227 435 -12.46 1.8781 -2.71
1200 1155 385 -14.61 2.1304 -3.04USSR 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball .325 G1 BC, 2706fps
Code:
Range Velocity Energy Trajectory TOF Drift
(yards) (fps) (ft-lb) (MILS) (sec) (MILS)
0 2706 2403 0.00 0.0000 0.00
[B]100 2430[/B] 1937 -0.00 0.1170 -0.30
200 2170 1546 -0.61 0.2476 -0.64
[B]300[/B] 1928 [B]1220[/B] -1.50 0.3943 -1.01
400 1703 952 -2.60 0.5599 -1.43
500 1500 738 -3.93 0.7477 -1.89
600 1324 575 -5.54 0.9608 -2.41
700 1181 457 -7.47 1.2013 -2.97
800 1075 379 -9.79 1.4683 -3.56
900 1000 328 -12.52 1.7583 -4.13
1000 941 291 -15.67 2.0682 -4.69
1100 893 262 -19.24 2.3960 -5.23
1200 852 238 -23.23 2.7406 -5.75You could even drop the pressures and go with a 2500fps mv and still smoke it.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-22-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:What if you could increase hit probability, reduce wind deflection & trajectory, with a lighter projectile that has way less recoil, and exceed M80 or 7.62x54R terminal energy beyond 300yds all in the same ball of wax?Uh huh. Question is, with the switch to lead-free bullets, can you get even 120gr 6.5mm, let alone 130gr?
Oh yeah, we've kicked that horse before.
130gr Lead Core 6.5mm .570 G1 BC, 2600fps
USSR 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball .325 G1 BC, 2706fps
You could even drop the pressures and go with a 2500fps mv and still smoke it.
Plus, you're picking one of the lowest BCs for LPS Ball shown on 7.62x54r.net. Try it with 110gr 6.5mm .450 G1 BC vs Polish 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball .538 G1 BC, 2800fps
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - JASmith - 04-22-2014
stanc Wrote:Uh huh. Question is, with the switch to lead-free bullets, can you get even 120gr 6.5mm, let alone 130gr?Enough cherry picking to "prove" a point!
Plus, you're picking one of the lowest BCs for LPS Ball shown on 7.62x54r.net. Try it with 110gr 6.5mm .450 G1 BC vs Polish 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball .538 G1 BC, 2800fps
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-22-2014
Tony Williams Wrote:Can you refresh my memory as to where that one came from, please?http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/11/usa-force-rest-nato-change-calibres/
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - LRRPF52 - 04-22-2014
stanc Wrote:Uh huh. Question is, with the switch to lead-free bullets, can you get even 120gr 6.5mm, let alone 130gr?
Plus, you're picking one of the lowest BCs for LPS Ball shown on 7.62x54r.net. Try it with 110gr 6.5mm .450 G1 BC vs Polish 1986 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball .538 G1 BC, 2800fps
That would be some nice ammunition if the data isn't a typo. It's got a long boat tail, nice ogive profile.
![[Image: ammo033c_small.JPG]](http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/ammo033c_small.JPG)
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-22-2014
JASmith Wrote:Enough cherry picking to "prove" a point!That is the point I was trying to make, Joe. I wouldn't actually use the cited BC and MV of the Polish LPS round. I'd want the nominal values. In an attempt to get such data, yesterday I went to the MG&A forum and asked. One of the SME's reported LPS G7 BC as 0.208 (which translates to 0.406 G1 BC), and MV from the PKM machine gun as 840 mps (~2750 fps).
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=5922.7
http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/?msg=5922.9
These numbers are in line with the mid-range LPS rounds tested by 7.62x54r.net, and seem much more reasonable to use if one wishes to have a realistic comparison.
And, while I really like Paul's 6.5 LMG concept, I just don't see how a 130gr lead-free bullet is practical. The Swedish 6.5mm AP bullet is nearly 5 calibers long, but weighs only 113gr. Make it completely lead-free, and it'd weigh less than 110gr.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - JASmith - 04-22-2014
Some of Berger's bullets are close to 5.5 calibers long.
We also seem to assume that lead-free must be implemented with iron or steel. While iron and steel are about as inexpensive as one can get, and economy is one of the reasons a lot of bullets and cases are made from steel, denser "green' materials exist but are more expensive.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-22-2014
JASmith Wrote:Some of Berger's bullets are close to 5.5 calibers long.Yes. I figure a lead-free 130gr bullet will be close to 6 calibers long, and a companion tracer even longer. Is that feasible?
Quote:We also seem to assume that lead-free must be implemented with iron or steel. While iron and steel are about as inexpensive as one can get, and economy is one of the reasons a lot of bullets and cases are made from steel, denser "green' materials exist but are more expensive.The Nammo lead-free bullets used by Norway have a two-piece steel core. The US M855A1 has a steel tip and copper slug. It seems logical to me to plan for using the types of materials that have actually proven acceptable to the military.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - BluntForceTrauma - 04-22-2014
Waveslayer linked to an article in the Washington Times about Russia showing a "tactical advantage."
One quote: "While some national leaders focus on big defense issues, Mr. Putin has taken a personal interest in one of the smallest: the rifle. . . . Putin actually goes out and shoots these things,” Gen. Scales said.
Please, dear God, don't let me actually grow to like the bastard!
John
P.S. And, by the way, I note that, Scott Traudt, an executive with Green Mountain, says, “They’ve got new grenade launchers that are awesome."
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - nincomp - 04-22-2014
Please, please John, do not post photos (or worse, videos) of you riding horseback with your shirt off!
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - NugginFutz - 04-22-2014
I wanna see John wrestling a shark while shooting clay pigeons and then discovering a priceless box of Steel Cased Wolf 6.5 Grendel ammo at the foot of an ancient dig. (Pssst.. John - you can keep the shirt on)
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Michael - 04-22-2014
nincomp Wrote:Please, please John, do not post photos (or worse, videos) of you riding horseback with your shirt off!
I just threw up in my mouth a little...
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - BluntForceTrauma - 04-23-2014
Hey, it's been a long winter here in Minnesota, you guys wouldn't be able to see ANYTHING, you'd be blinded by that pasty white light!
John
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - LRRPF52 - 04-23-2014
It's easy for us to critique Putin from the Western point of view, far off from the comfort provided by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, but Russia has gone through their normal cycle of economic, political, then military collapse. They have been in a position of resurgence after a strong leader rose to the top after many years of downturn under Yeltsin.
Putin is such that he remains very cool-headed, but you know he's thinking that he is going to win whatever skirmish or conflict is on the table at the time, while the rest of the "leaders" in the West coordinate their metrosexual girlsuits and make empty threats about maybe doing some sanctions. Oh wait, Russia is the energy provider for Europe, especially after that little disaster in Japan, combined with Germany's utter insanity of shutting down one of their safest, cleanest sources of energy at the behest of the useful idiots for Moscow that think they are actually environmentalist/Green Party advocates.
With those fundamental realities, we all wish we had a real leader who was as much of an advocate for our own Nation as Putin is for his, rather than the Soviet plant that our current WH occupant is, who clearly is more concerned about our enemies, while reducing our military capacity to unprecedented levels since we became the world super power. All this at the threshold of the series of wars that will be fought over Europe-the wars we sought to prevent with NATO during the Cold War, that are now finally playing out with no tangible opposition to Russia.
With that big picture in mind, it will be interesting to see how much actual revenue is allocated to upgrading the US Military Small Arms, versus tying our hands with "green" and "environmentally conscious" projectiles that don't leave a nasty footprint....it seems to come right out of a genius and insidious playbook concocted from Lubyanka.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-23-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:...it will be interesting to see how much actual revenue is allocated to upgrading the US Military Small Arms, versus tying our hands with "green" and "environmentally conscious" projectiles...I really do not understand this line of thought, which I've seen stated over and over again, on this and other forums. The Russia army has been using steel-core bullets for decades, but somehow it's a catastrophe if we do? :confused:
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Tony Williams - 04-23-2014
stanc Wrote:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/11/usa-force-rest-nato-change-calibres/
Thanks!
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - BluntForceTrauma - 04-23-2014
stanc Wrote:The Russia army has been using steel-core bullets for decades, but somehow it's a catastrophe if we do?
Stan, one question: Have the Soviets been using steel-core bullets due to their environmental sensitivities?
A follow up: Would the Soviets let environmental sensitivity limit their military capability in any way?
John
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - JASmith - 04-23-2014
++ 1 !!!
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-23-2014
HANKA Wrote:Stan, one question: Have the Soviets been using steel-core bullets due to their environmental sensitivities?John, I couldn't care less what their reasons are. Isn't the important issue whether or not steel-core bullets are effective?
I can't count all the posts I've seen that laud the performance of 5.45x39 and 7.62x54R, both of which use steel-core bullets.
For that matter, in the latter part of WWII, steel-core bullets succeeded lead-core rounds as standard issue for US troops. Does anybody seriously think that would've been done if it reduced the effectiveness of small arms???