+- 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 Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers (/showthread.php?tid=482)
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - BluntForceTrauma - 05-25-2011
LR, yes, the Cris Murray in question, with the 7x46, is also the one involved in 6.8 development.
John
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 06-30-2011
I've emailed back and forth with him. He has converted that MG42/3 to 7x46, and is using non-disintegrating metallic links from the RPD I think. He has a good sense about managing the pressures at lower levels to keep longevity for the firearms and component parts. The 7x46 has less over-bore, so it is lower-pressure, with less recoil.
He also has an assault rifle design roughly worked-out with some 3D drawings.
We both agree that there should be a test and evaluation board of engineers with combat arms backgrounds, who will actually have to deploy to hostile-fire zones with any new designs before giving a stamp of approval, rather than the retired Colonels and Generals who have to train their gag-reflex not to function when they push whatever company's horrible products as a lobbyist or contractor to grease the Pentagon system. It's pretty much SOP in that demonic town of D.C.
I saw a lot of it first-hand when I was stationed there, especially at AUSA and other conventions. A guy with a huge salary that was an O-6 or above retires after 25 years on active duty, jumps right into work for one of the numerous defense contractors, drinks the company cool-aid after seeing his salary, and pushes whatever system they are selling like it's good as gold.
A few years later, when I was in LRS, we had these defense contractor types come issue us some silly field heater pack gizmos, and they mentioned that they had been involved with the LBV design. I proceeded to let them know what a piece of crap it was with the maybe 300 denier fabric it was made of, the tiny mag pouches that could only hold a candy bar or pens after being soaked and dried, and some other issues with it. One SGM (Ret) who was part of this committee tried to tell me how those inboard pouches were set-up for lying in the prone, and that they didn't need to be capable of holding two mags. I had already cut them off of mine and sewn on some 1000 denier Cordura Woodland Camo GP pouches that could hold plenty of mags, SAW ammo, 203 rounds, NOD's, etc. regardless of what duty position or weapon system I needed to fill.
Anyway, an active prototype and field test engineer team would really make a lot more sense. Have students in Ranger School and the Q-Course evaluate products after that for durability, and then make necessary improvements. The PEO system is pretty weak, if you ask me. I looked at their site recently, and they couldn't even get the nomenclatures correct on their own systems, which were in the hands of Military District of Washington soldiers in pristine kit. The new systems seem to be bulkier and heavier than what they're replacing, especially the grenade launcher that is supposed to bump the 203 out of the system. Major fails...
LRRPF52
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-03-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:I've emailed back and forth with him. He has converted that MG42/3 to 7x46, and is using non-disintegrating metallic links from the RPD I think.Please see PM.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-04-2011
P.S. That German gun is awesome! Watching the first 1:30 of the following video, I wondered how that soldier had good enough trigger control to get single shots from a 1200 rpm weapon. When I viewed it again, I saw he was actually doing 4-round bursts, but the shots were so close together it only sounded like one shot! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uYNFilb-YA
Then there is the guy in this video, who fires his MG3 offhand like a rifle! Didn't know that was possible. 80 rounds in ten seconds. Wow! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebJOT95Gh3k
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-07-2011
"Honest, Sarge...the barrel was already worn out before I started shooting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hEjNNgK0Og
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - Mav714 - 07-10-2011
What's amazing to me is that my dad and other relatives carried either the Garrand or .30 carbine all over WII and got the job done. Countless soldiers carried the 30:06 all over with a 9+ lb rifle plus the gear. what I especially don't understand about our military is why they want to stay with a varmint round. I know it's a NATO round etc, but putting combatant down quickly vs multiple shoots doesn't make sense. Don't even get me started on the 9mm vs the 45 acp! Once again a heavier bullet will do more damage as well stop a vehicle.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - JASmith - 07-10-2011
Mav714,
You've nicely captured the essence of the debate!
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-10-2011
Mav714 Wrote:What's amazing to me is that my dad and other relatives carried either the Garrand or .30 carbine all over WII and got the job done. Countless soldiers carried the 30:06 all over with a 9+ lb rifle plus the gear. what I especially don't understand about our military is why they want to stay with a varmint round. I know it's a NATO round etc, but putting combatant down quickly vs multiple shoots doesn't make sense.The 5.56mm M4 is the modern equivalent of the .30 M1 carbine, which reportedly often required multiple hits to stop an enemy soldier.
What I don't understand is why today everybody (but me
) has proposed alternative cartridges only in 6.5mm, 6.8mm and 7mm. Why, them's all furrin calibers. 
6mm is a uniquely American military caliber. Japan, Norway and Sweden had 6.5mm, China had 6.8mm, Spain had 7mm, but only the United States has ever adopted and fielded 6mm rifles and machine guns.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - JASmith - 07-11-2011
stanc Wrote:...6mm is a uniquely American military caliber. Japan, Norway and Sweden had 6.5mm, China had 6.8mm, Spain had 7mm, but only the United States has ever adopted and fielded 6mm rifles and machine guns.You know, I never realized that!
Thanks for the insight!!!
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - Tony Williams - 07-11-2011
But 6.8mm is also .270, which has an honourable place in US commercial rounds!
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - LRRPF52 - 07-11-2011
Mav714 Wrote:What's amazing to me is that my dad and other relatives carried either the Garrand or .30 carbine all over WII and got the job done. Countless soldiers carried the 30:06 all over with a 9+ lb rifle plus the gear. what I especially don't understand about our military is why they want to stay with a varmint round. I know it's a NATO round etc, but putting combatant down quickly vs multiple shoots doesn't make sense. Don't even get me started on the 9mm vs the 45 acp! Once again a heavier bullet will do more damage as well stop a vehicle.
There's nothing really wrong with 5.56 NATO. I'm a self-admitted 5.56 Nazi, so you can ridicule me all you like. I've seen what it does, and I'm more than impressed with it. I've never seen a clean 5.56 injury or fatality-they have all been ugly. For dismounted riflemen, it's an excellent cartridge with formidable performance characteristics. Whether I'm carrying an M4 or a 7.62 NATO rifle, or even a 7.62x39 weapon, I'm not going to be shooting one round, then assessing target feedback. I'm going to place continuous well-aimed fire into the target until it is squirming in the dirt, and then shoot again if possible.
I wouldn't assess the bulk of US military success in WWII on the small arms they had then, because the Germans had several better weapon systems when looking at the MG42, MG34, G41, and later the Stg44, but those really were put to the most use on the Russian and Eastern European front. Our dismounts were really policing up what was left of only 1/3 of the Wermacht back in Germany, after being bombed tortuously by thermite munitions from B-17's & B-24's. We literally burned scores of German cities to the ground in hellish infernos that often reached unearthly temperatures. The same thing was done to Japan.
I wouldn't attribute the small arms mix we had as a decisive factor in any US victories in Central Europe, speaking from a holistic picture of warfare in that conflict. Had we been fighting the two-thirds of the German Army that was on the Russian front since 1941, it would have been an entirely different outcome. Millions of Russians lost their lives in numerous spearheads and campaigns from the German Blitzkriegs, which has been adopted by the US for combined-arms warfare since the Germans pioneered it.
5.56 NATO is not where we have a weakness in the current small arms mix. Even though it isn't an intermediate cartridge in the idea behind 7.62x39 and 7.92x33, the SCHV concept has proven itself an excellent component as far as small arms go for dismounted riflemen, and even support personnel. The real area for improvement is in our Light Machineguns, General Purpose Machineguns, and sniper rifles. As you might have seen before in the discussion, I'm a huge proponent of fixing this area of small arms chambering from the 7.62 NATO to something lighter, with equal or better ballistics.
LRRPF52
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-11-2011
Tony Williams Wrote:But 6.8mm is also .270, which has an honourable place in US commercial rounds!Like .270 Winchester? Never heard of it.
That reminds me, in the 6.8 Chinese thread on iaaforum, one poster said he had a large stash of 120gr .277" FMJ bullets, which (IIRC) were made many years ago for .270 Win. If he still has them and would be willing to part with a quantity, they might be useful in developing a 6.8 version of your proposed GPC.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-11-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:I wouldn't assess the bulk of US military success in WWII on the small arms they had then, because the Germans had several better weapon systems when looking at the MG42, MG34, G41, and later the Stg44, but those really were put to the most use on the Russian and Eastern European front. Our dismounts were really policing up what was left of only 1/3 of the Wermacht back in Germany, after being bombed tortuously by thermite munitions from B-17's & B-24's.I think that Mav was posing a question: How was it that G.I.s managed to fight WWII with 10-lb rifles and 30-lb "light" machine guns that fired heavy ammunition, but today's infantrymen whine about the weight of 7.62 guns and ammo (which weigh less than their WWII counterparts)?
Quote:I wouldn't attribute the small arms mix we had as a decisive factor in any US victories in Central Europe, speaking from a holistic picture of warfare in that conflict. Had we been fighting the two-thirds of the German Army that was on the Russian front since 1941, it would have been an entirely different outcome.The US Army, equipped with M1 rifle, M1 carbine, M1918 BAR, M1919 LMG and M1917 HMG vs the German Army in its prime, armed with StG44 assault rifle and MG42 GPMG. Now, that would've been something to see! :eek:
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - JASmith - 07-11-2011
LRRPF52 Wrote:There's nothing really wrong with 5.56 NATO....Those are useful confirmations of where Tony's understanding has moved to. We all (especially yours truly), learn with time, experience and improved knowledge.
...The real area for improvement is in our Light Machineguns, General Purpose Machineguns, and sniper rifles. As you might have seen before in the discussion, I'm a huge proponent of fixing this area of small arms chambering from the 7.62 NATO to something lighter, with equal or better ballistics.
Where I continue to be stuck is "How do we treat the enormous investment in vehicle-mounted 7.62's?" By the time you add up the machine guns on HMMV's and other wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, plus mini-guns on helicopters and AF gunships, you have an enormous stock of weapons. One could speculate that the mounted application also accounts for the bulk of the 7.62X51 ammunition consumption.
Proponents of the mounted application will likely advocate for improved 7.62X51 ammunition instead of a newer, lighter cartridge and caliber combination. Further, the 147-150 grain bullet was arrived at to reduce the recoil in shoulder-fired applications more than, I believe, from keeping equipment from being shaken apart.
Should we then advocate both the lighter, still highly capable cartridge while pointing out that eliminating the 7.62X51 from the dismounted role creates an opportunity for adopting a heavier, more effective bullet for the mounted role?
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-11-2011
JASmith Wrote:Where I continue to be stuck is "How do we treat the enormous investment in vehicle-mounted 7.62's?" By the time you add up the machine guns on HMMV's and other wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, plus mini-guns on helicopters and AF gunships, you have an enormous stock of weapons.A very relevant question. I don't view the guns on wheeled vehicles as a problem. They are just infantry machine guns on pintle mounts. And, since the 5.56 M249 is often used for that purpose, it seems clear that caliber doesn't have to be 7.62x51.
Armored vehicles and aircraft may be another matter. Although in theory the 7.62 weapons could be converted to the new round, the reality is that it would require considerable expense and effort to convert not only the guns, but also the feed systems and (perhaps) the stowage bins. The benefit of increased number of rounds for a given weight/space might not be deemed worth the cost.
Which means you'd end up with a three-caliber system, and that's been opposed by the leadership at least as far back as 1970, when the 6mm SAW round was dropped in favor of an improved 5.56x45 loading.
Quote:Should we then advocate both the lighter, still highly capable cartridge while pointing out that eliminating the 7.62X51 from the dismounted role creates an opportunity for adopting a heavier, more effective bullet for the mounted role?If you mean a heavier, more effective cartridge, I doubt that would fly. They already use .50 cal for some vehicle/aircraft applications. I think that anything in between 7.62 and .50 would be viewed as more gun than needed for the 7.62 use, and "not enough" gun to replace the .50 BMG.
Plus, even if it were to be argued that a new machine gun in caliber intermediate between 7.62 and .50 could replace both on aircraft and armored vehicles, then you've at least doubled the difficulty in getting the new infantry caliber adopted. Getting one new cartridge fielded will be hard enough, but to get two such changes at the same time?
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - JASmith - 07-11-2011
JASmith Wrote:Should we then advocate both the lighter, still highly capable cartridge while pointing out that eliminating the 7.62X51 from the dismounted role creates an opportunity for adopting a heavier, more effective bullet for the mounted role?Stan, a bullet is different from a cartridge. As you know there is already activity to get a new bullet for the 7.62X51. The opportunity is that folks might be able to allow that balance to move away from shoulder fired weapons in optimizing that new bullet and consider requirements derived only from vehicle and aircraft mounted roles. This might mean, e. g., a 165 grain bullet for the 7.62X51 that could be more effective at barrier defeat at the longer ranges.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - bwaites - 07-11-2011
If you want barrier penetration, the 7.62x51 is plenty capable of launching a 200+ grain bullet at appropriate velocity to do so. With some of new powders, it will be a very good round for that application. If you go to strictly mounted use, you can even load it a bit longer and get back some of the lost powder space.
The .gov can order enough rounds that the new powders would be cost comparable with bulk powders, now, too.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-11-2011
JASmith Wrote:Stan, a bullet is different from a cartridge.Of course. In the context of what you wrote, I wasn't sure that "bullet" is what you really meant.
Quote:As you know there is already activity to get a new bullet for the 7.62X51. The opportunity is that folks might be able to allow that balance to move away from shoulder fired weapons in optimizing that new bullet and consider requirements derived only from vehicle and aircraft mounted roles. This might mean, e. g., a 165 grain bullet for the 7.62X51 that could be more effective at barrier defeat at the longer ranges.I don't know if they've looked at anything heavier than 149 grains for M80A1, but yes, a 165gr bullet might have better hard target penetration at long range.
However, such a heavy (unleaded) bullet would be very long, and occupy a not-insignificant amount of powder space in the case. That would reduce muzzle velocity, and adversely affect penetration at long range.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - stanc - 07-11-2011
bwaites Wrote:If you want barrier penetration, the 7.62x51 is plenty capable of launching a 200+ grain bullet at appropriate velocity to do so. If you go to strictly mounted use, you can even load it a bit longer and get back some of the lost powder space.A 200+ grain "eco-friendly" bullet would be extremely long for caliber, and likely require barrels with a faster rifling twist. Even loaded long, a lot of powder space would be lost. Plus, a long loading might require gun modifications, something to be avoided, if at all possible.
New Cartridge Developments and Implications for Dismounted Infantry Soldiers - bwaites - 07-11-2011
So we still need eco-friendly?
I agree, its tougher to do, but its still doable. In fact, a solid copper bullet would work. 180 grain Barnes with a BC or .473 can be loaded easily to 2700 FPS with easily available powders. Using the newer Superperformance powders, I'd bet you could get over 2800 out of them, at standard length.
Bumping to 200 grains loses several hundred feet per second, but is doable, with 2600 FPS velocities at standard length.