Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[cory]

So am I, which is what leads me to my conclusions. Far to many occurrences at suspect times that leave you scratching your head.
Take all of them and the demasculating of the military that's going on, then step back look at it all as a whole, there's only one conclusion that makes sense.
When a dictator is accumulating power at some point they have to stack the top level military brass. It's a text book move.
If you think it's that far fetched, listen to Obama talk about the military in '08.

[cory]

I don't think for one second there are any boards or anything on record that certain officers are being purged because they aren't willing to go along with the administration.

[LR1955]

I don't think for one second there are any boards or anything on record that certain officers are being purged because they aren't willing to go along with the administration.

Cory / Guys:

Then where are these Officers who were so unjustly cashiered from the military? I have heard General ranking Officers say they retired because of Obama but so far not one has said he was thrown out of the Army because he disagreed with Obama policies and faced Courts Martial over such a disagreement. Yes, a Courts Martial. Why do I say this? Because a purge is involuntary. Being thrown out with prejudice via Courts Martial is also involuntary. G.O.'s, Officers, NCO's or EM's who decide to retire, resign their commissions, or ETS over Obama do so voluntarily. And that doesn't even come close to a 'purge' in historical terms (Stalin).

There is a huge difference between RIF boards and Stalinist purges. The last bunch of RIFs (although they weren't called that) happened around 93 and 94. Officers with 14 - 16 years had their records reviewed and if the board determined they were not competitive for promotion, they were told they could get out then with about a year's base pay as a separation pay or to stay in and see if they would be promoted -- and if they lost out -- they would leave with nothing. It sucked but compare that to any Stalinist purge of his Officer Corps where they were judged by politics, race, and religion, and if found 'guilty' of being an enemy of the Revolution or some such BS, were shot, hung, or sent to the Gulag and worked to death.

So, all I ask is that folks think real clearly before implying our military would conduct a 'purge' of its ranks. It demeans the military and diverts attention away from the main point trying to be made. A point that I am not sure exists because a bunch of guys got out due to Carter and Clinton as well. I am sure some did because of Regan and both Bushes.

Finally, G.O.s are approved by Congress individually. A Democrat Senate and President will select G.O.'s based on their competence but also based on how well they think that General will abide by their vision of the military. Sorry but that is how it goes, and has gone for over 200 years. BTW -- Truman relieved McArthur because McArthur disagreed with Truman's vision of the Korean war and Communist China. McArthur was retired and seen as a hero. What do you think happened to Generals who Stalin purged?

So, all have a good Thanksgiving!

LR1955

[Michael]

Kinda off the topic of the original thread, but I will try to weigh in a bit. I can only speak for myself as a prior enlisted officer. My decision to stay in for the last 26 years (and 5 Presidents) has not been influenced in any way shape or form by who sits in the President’s office. My driving force has been whether or not I can still serve those junior to me by being good at my job. My recent decision to retire has also been made with how well I can continue to ‘serve’ as my driving force…nothing about POLITICS influenced my decision. This is how most - not all, but most - of the officers I know base their decisions on.

Having some experience with promotion boards, who agrees or who does not agree with the policies of the current administration is not even a factor. It is all based on performance as evaluated by others in uniform and how well an individual meets individual standards. If you don’t perform, you don’t stay. Not a perfect system, but show me one that is.

Like others (LR1955 included), I saw the drawdowns of the early ‘90s and I am seeing them again. It is a cyclic procedure that has repeated itself over and over again in our history. It is not a ‘purge’. The recent spate of GOs and other senior officer who have been relieved for cause seems a little high, but the head of each service is the final determining factor in the continuation of the careers of those officers…not the President. And in most cases, those reliefs were justified – remember, we will only get about half the story.

When you reach the GO level, there is a huge amount of politics involved with the job…there has to be. Those guys are working with the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military and nation to ensure that the troops receive the gear, training and support they need to accomplish the mission. Tell me how a GO can sway a politician about the justification of a program costing billions of dollars (like a new GP cartridge) without playing politician himself. How well the GOs do their jobs are dependent on their ability to navigate that political warren in D.C.. Some are better than others, and some forget where they came from. That is human nature and as I understand it, forgetting where you come from happens outside of the military.

One last note – the Senate reviews/approves promotion lists for officers - lists provided to them by the individual services . To my knowledge, the President doesn’t even get involved with promotions until you reach the GO level. Even at that level, my understanding is the President defers to the Joint Chiefs and the Secretaries of the departments as he receives recommendations from them.

Enough of a rant. Hope I didn’t bore or insult anyone.

[LR1955]

Kinda off the topic of the original thread, but I will try to weigh in a bit. I can only speak for myself as a prior enlisted officer. My decision to stay in for the last 26 years (and 5 Presidents) has not been influenced in any way shape or form by who sits in the President’s office. My driving force has been whether or not I can still serve those junior to me by being good at my job. My recent decision to retire has also been made with how well I can continue to ‘serve’ as my driving force…nothing about POLITICS influenced my decision. This is how most - not all, but most - of the officers I know base their decisions on.

Having some experience with promotion boards, who agrees or who does not agree with the policies of the current administration is not even a factor. It is all based on performance as evaluated by others in uniform and how well an individual meets individual standards. If you don’t perform, you don’t stay. Not a perfect system, but show me one that is.

Like others (LR1955 included), I saw the drawdowns of the early ‘90s and I am seeing them again. It is a cyclic procedure that has repeated itself over and over again in our history. It is not a ‘purge’. The recent spate of GOs and other senior officer who have been relieved for cause seems a little high, but the head of each service is the final determining factor in the continuation of the careers of those officers…not the President. And in most cases, those reliefs were justified – remember, we will only get about half the story.

When you reach the GO level, there is a huge amount of politics involved with the job…there has to be. Those guys are working with the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military and nation to ensure that the troops receive the gear, training and support they need to accomplish the mission. Tell me how a GO can sway a politician about the justification of a program costing billions of dollars (like a new GP cartridge) without playing politician himself. How well the GOs do their jobs are dependent on their ability to navigate that political warren in D.C.. Some are better than others, and some forget where they came from. That is human nature and as I understand it, forgetting where you come from happens outside of the military.

One last note – the Senate reviews/approves promotion lists for officers - lists provided to them by the individual services . To my knowledge, the President doesn’t even get involved with promotions until you reach the GO level. Even at that level, my understanding is the President defers to the Joint Chiefs and the Secretaries of the departments as he receives recommendations from them.

Enough of a rant. Hope I didn’t bore or insult anyone.

Mike:

I don't view that as a rant. I view it as a clear statement of reality.

Yes, thats how promotion lists for Officers go, with GO promotions given a bit more scrutiny by the politicians. Generally the President goes along with what ever is recommended. He doesn't have to but normally does.

And, the only reason I got involved was because the notion that some political entity was 'purging' the officer ranks drifted too far in the direction of tin foil hats.

There you go guys. Mike said it better than I did.

LR55

[bwaites]

Now that we have the politics of General Officers clear, can we put this thread back on topic? Thanks to all who contributed!

[Michael]

Now that we have the politics of General Officers clear, can we put this thread back on topic? Thanks to all who contributed!

Sorry Bill, back in the box.

Re change to ANY new cartridge - as a few of us have said, it is going to take a lot more than a couple hundred more yds of range or 10% weight reduction to get a new program off the ground. If someone is serious about it, a cost/benefit analysis will need to be done that looks at the following -

1) Cost to upgrade existing training facilities/ranges to support increased range. (FYI – friend of mine is involved in the ranges for the Marine Corps – asked him how much it would cost to upgrade KD/training ranges to go from 500yds to 600 or 700. He laughed and said it would be close to a billion – many would have to be moved due to other encroachment. Think what the Army would need to spend)

2) Cost to replace existing weapons and IX block (replacement parts/tools…Current replacement cost of an M16A4/M4 is just under $600 per. There are by my guestimation at least 2 million of these in the US military inventory. As to that replacement for all the LMG/SAW/MMG)

3) Cost to replace existing stockpiled ammunition. (Billions of rounds at what, .10 apiece? I don't have that many fingers or toes)

This is the tack that the military would have to use with the politicians…and we would need to show a lot more than incremental improvements to current weapons/ammo to get it approved.

[LRRPF52]

Add to that that well over 92% of soldiers and Marines would not be capable of exploiting the added capabilities without significant changes to the training programs, and the fact that most marksmanship instructors are pretty clueless about wind drift, let alone trajectory.

On the other hand, everything is already in-place if a Grendel-like cartridge was introduced for belt-fed machinegun training. The gun and ammo would just be lighter, with less recoil, and less wind drift.

[woohoo]

Add to that that well over 92% of soldiers and Marines would not be capable of exploiting the added capabilities without significant changes to the training programs, and the fact that most marksmanship instructors are pretty clueless about wind drift, let alone trajectory.

On the other hand, everything is already in-place if a Grendel-like cartridge was introduced for belt-fed machinegun training. The gun and ammo would just be lighter, with less recoil, and less wind drift.

So after 5 years of saying they should adopt the Grendel to replace the M4 are you now saying they shouldn't but they should use it in a MG?

[LRRPF52]

If you look through my posts over the years, I've never been a proponent for replacing 5.56. I have been a proponent for replacing 7.62 NATO, by displacing it to the vehicle-mounted weapons as a new proper LMG cartridge is phased in. (Check my post #72 in this thread, which is the first I addressed 5.56 vs. something else, appropriate platforms, AR12.5, etc.)

This LMG cartridge would also be used in Semi-Auto Sniper and DM systems.

Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have.

5.56 carbines are almost perfect in their current state, especially with SOPMOD Block II and 70gr Barnes, although the bolt geometry is not up to the task in the long-term at 5.56 pressures reaching 62,000 psi.

The industry has jumped all over carbines, when they need to really improve our light machine gun systems. The SAW and M240 are way too heavy, bulky, and could have a better cartridge that would replace both systems. I've beaten this horse to death on the forum for years. You won't find me posting how every swinging Joe needs a high performance intermediate cartridge in his carbine here-quite the opposite.

[cory]

...Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have...

That would be no worse than Joe slinging 62gr projectiles in CQB situation, with poor tactics and inadequate battlefield awareness.

The more I think about the more I'm a proponent of Joe slinging a 200-230gr projectile in CQB environments. A 10mm or 45acp. Adequate energy at the muzzle and it sheds that energy relatively quickly. This is assuming we use "Open Tip Projectiles".

[LRRPF52]

That would be no worse than Joe slinging 62gr projectiles in CQB situation, with poor tactics and inadequate battlefield awareness.

The more I think about the more I'm a proponent of Joe slinging a 200-230gr projectile in CQB environments. A 10mm or 45acp. Adequate energy at the muzzle and it sheds that energy relatively quickly. This is assuming we use "Open Tip Projectiles".

A 120-130gr pill retains a lot of energy, but also requires a lot of energy to be spit forth, so shot recovery suffers above certain pressures. With 5.56, shot recovery is excellent. Anything pistol caliber is out of the question, since I need my guys to be able to reach out to 300-400yds once we pass through the buildings, or even set-up overwatch in the buildings. 5.56 also does significantly more damage than .45 or 10mm HP's, not even close. 5.56 will fillet legs and arms, canoe heads, and pulverize lungs and hearts. Pistol calibers pretty much suck equally at causing damage to people. I've seen several examples of both, including being shot personally by 9mm, and I'm infinitely glad that I wasn't shot with 5.56 NATO.

Then get back to the soldier's load issues, resupply after contact, combat endurance...it's hard to argue with 5.56 and 5.45 Russian for riflemen.

[woohoo]

If you look through my posts over the years, I've never been a proponent for replacing 5.56. I have been a proponent for replacing 7.62 NATO, by displacing it to the vehicle-mounted weapons as a new proper LMG cartridge is phased in. (Check my post #72 in this thread, which is the first I addressed 5.56 vs. something else, appropriate platforms, AR12.5, etc.)

This LMG cartridge would also be used in Semi-Auto Sniper and DM systems.

Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have.

5.56 carbines are almost perfect in their current state, especially with SOPMOD Block II and 70gr Barnes, although the bolt geometry is not up to the task in the long-term at 5.56 pressures reaching 62,000 psi.

The industry has jumped all over carbines, when they need to really improve our light machine gun systems. The SAW and M240 are way too heavy, bulky, and could have a better cartridge that would replace both systems. I've beaten this horse to death on the forum for years. You won't find me posting how every swinging Joe needs a high performance intermediate cartridge in his carbine here-quite the opposite.

I agree with you it shouldn't be used as a replacement for the M4 but I don't think it has enough case capacity/power for use in a LMG either.

[cory]

Oh I'm under the delusion that the 10mm or 45acp offers nearly the killing power the 5.56 does. And you notice I didn't suggest the 9mm FMJ.

So you're telling me 2 200gr projectiles to the chest at 1100fps wouldn't have taken you out of the fight, or 1 wouldn't take you out of the fight long enough for another guy to fill in the room behind me and put another 1 or 2 200gr projectiles in you?

A pistol requires me to expose significantly less of myself around a barrier to put down effective fire in a CQB environment.

[LRRPF52]

I agree with you it shouldn't be used as a replacement for the M4 but I don't think it has enough case capacity/power for use in a LMG either.

A 130gr at 2550-2600fps with a long COL is totally doable with another bolt design, especially when you look at canister powders specifically for it. BjornF16 developed a load for his Savage 20" bolt-action Grendel with the 129gr Interbond on top of CFE, and was able to hit 2585fps before the velocities starting getting erratic. He used a longer COL of 2.350". If you went to 2.400" in a belt-fed, you could even get more case capacity.

As it stands, that a 130gr at 2585fps with a .550 BC over-takes the .311 147.8gr 7.62x54R at 2750fps by 150yds for speed, and matched energy by 275yds. Trajectory and wind drift are significantly less, as is recoil and soldier's load. I consider this over-match, especially since we use belt-feds for busting through barriers in MOUT, and picking up where the carbines leave off in open terrain, while also being used in blocking positions to interdict vehicles.

130gr 6.5mm with .550 BC

Code:

Range Velocity Energy Trajectory TOF Drift (yards) (fps) (ft-lb) (MILS) (sec) (MILS) 0 2585 1929 0.00 0.0000 0.00 25 2544 1868 -1.51 0.0292 -0.05 50 2504 1809 -0.31 0.0590 -0.09 75 2464 1752 -0.04 0.0891 -0.14 100 2424 1696 -0.00 0.1198 -0.19 125 2385 1642 -0.06 0.1510 -0.23 [B]150 2346[/B] 1589 -0.17 0.1827 -0.28 175 2307 1537 -0.31 0.2150 -0.33 200 2269 1486 -0.48 0.2477 -0.38 225 2231 1437 -0.65 0.2811 -0.43 250 2194 1389 -0.85 0.3150 -0.49 [B]275 2157[/B] [B]1343[/B] -1.05 0.3494 -0.54 300 2120 1297 -1.26 0.3845 -0.59 300 2120 1297 -1.26 0.3845 -0.59 350 2048 1210 -1.71 0.4565 -0.70 400 1977 1128 -2.19 0.5310 -0.82 450 1907 1050 -2.70 0.6083 -0.94 [B] 500 1839 977 -3.24 0.6884 -1.06[/B] 550 1773 908 -3.82 0.7714 -1.19 600 1709 843 -4.42 0.8576 -1.32 650 1646 782 -5.06 0.9470 -1.45 700 1586 726 -5.74 1.0399 -1.59 [B]750 1527 673 -6.45 1.1363 -1.74[/B] 800 1471 624 -7.20 1.2364 -1.88 850 1417 579 -8.00 1.3403 -2.04 900 1366 538 -8.84 1.4482 -2.20 950 1317 501 -9.73 1.5601 -2.36 [B]1000 1272 467 -10.67 1.6761 -2.52[/B] 1050 1229 436 -11.66 1.7961 -2.69 1100 1190 409 -12.71 1.9202 -2.86 1150 1154 384 -13.82 2.0483 -3.04 [B]1200 1121 363 -14.98 2.1803 -3.21 still supersonic[/B] 1250 1092 344 -16.20 2.3160 -3.39 1300 1066 328 -17.49 2.4552 -3.56 1350 1042 313 -18.84 2.5977 -3.74 1400 1020 301 -20.25 2.7434 -3.91

147.8gr 7.62x54R Light Steel Core, .325 BC

Code:

Range Velocity Energy Trajectory TOF Drift (yards) (fps) (ft-lb) (MILS) (sec) (MILS) 0 2750 2485 0.00 0.0000 0.00 25 2679 2358 -1.56 0.0276 -0.07 50 2608 2236 -0.34 0.0560 -0.14 75 2539 2119 -0.05 0.0852 -0.22 100 2471 2006 -0.00 0.1151 -0.29 125 2404 1899 -0.05 0.1459 -0.37 150 [B]2338[/B] 1796 -0.15 0.1775 -0.45 175 2273 1698 -0.29 0.2100 -0.54 200 2209 1604 -0.45 0.2435 -0.62 225 2146 1514 -0.63 0.2779 -0.71 250 2085 1428 -0.82 0.3134 -0.80 [B] 275 2024 [/B] [B]1346[/B] -1.03 0.3499 -0.89 300 1964 1267 -1.26 0.3875 -0.98 325 1905 1193 -1.50 0.4263 -1.08 350 1848 1122 -1.75 0.4663 -1.18 375 1792 1055 -2.01 0.5075 -1.28 400 1736 991 -2.29 0.5500 -1.39 425 1683 930 -2.59 0.5939 -1.50 450 1630 873 -2.90 0.6392 -1.61 475 1579 820 -3.22 0.6859 -1.73 [B] 500 1530 769 -3.56 0.7342 -1.85[/B] 525 1482 722 -3.92 0.7840 -1.97 550 1436 677 -4.29 0.8354 -2.09 575 1391 636 -4.68 0.8885 -2.22 600 1349 598 -5.09 0.9432 -2.35 625 1308 562 -5.53 0.9997 -2.49 650 1270 530 -5.98 1.0579 -2.63 675 1234 500 -6.45 1.1178 -2.76 700 1200 473 -6.95 1.1795 -2.91 725 1169 449 -7.47 1.2428 -3.05 [B]750 1140 427 -8.02 1.3078 -3.19[/B] [B][color=red]775 1113 407 -8.59 1.3744 -3.34[/color][/B][B]subsonic[/B] 800 1089 390 -9.18 1.4426 -3.48 825 1066 374 -9.80 1.5122 -3.63 850 1046 360 -10.45 1.5833 -3.78 875 1027 347 -11.12 1.6557 -3.92 900 1010 335 -11.82 1.7293 -4.06 925 993 324 -12.55 1.8043 -4.21 950 978 314 -13.30 1.8804 -4.35 975 963 305 -14.08 1.9578 -4.49 [B]1000 949 296 -14.88 2.0363 -4.62[/B] 1025 936 288 -15.71 2.1159 -4.76 1050 924 280 -16.57 2.1967 -4.90 1075 912 273 -17.45 2.2785 -5.03 1100 900 266 -18.36 2.3614 -5.16 1125 889 260 -19.29 2.4454 -5.30 1150 879 254 -20.25 2.5304 -5.43 1175 869 248 -21.24 2.6164 -5.56 1200 859 242 -22.25 2.7035 -5.68 1225 849 237 -23.29 2.7916 -5.81 1250 839 231 -24.35 2.8807 -5.94 1275 830 226 -25.44 2.9708 -6.06 1300 821 222 -26.56 3.0620 -6.18 1325 812 217 -27.70 3.1541 -6.31 1350 804 212 -28.87 3.2473 -6.43 1375 795 208 -30.06 3.3416 -6.55 1400 787 204 -31.28 3.4368 -6.67

As a Squad Leader, I would have loved to have had that type of performance in a true Light Machine Gun, with linked ammo the equivalent weight of 7.62x39 linked. Add in a DM per Fire Team with an SPR-type rifle with these capabilities, and reacting to contact in a mountainous environment takes on new meaning, where my trained killers can actually get some performance at distance, as opposed to 5.56 peeing in the wind.

With that load, I'm supersonic out to 1200yds, and they are subsonic by 775yds.

[Trooper]

OK -- I just have to ask.

How many RIFs did you live through in your Army career?

How about showing us proof that boards are in the process of removing Officers and NCO's who are 'non-compliant'.

I am sure that since you believe a 'purge' of 'non-compliant' officers is going on, that you can link us to a Dept of the Army web site that has a copy of this compliancy list and states how to look at a 201 file or OER and determine if an Officer is or is not 'compliant'.

LR1955

Army Times has had a number of cover articles over the last 6 weeks on the shrinking size of the US Army.

The real problem is that we are pulling back. We may no longer afford to project power abroad.

The Islamists moved to fill the void in the power vacuum left after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I have wondered who would fill the void if we no longer are a super power. My guess is that China will take our place. It will be then that most of the resources in the world will come under the control of either China or the Islamists. And we will have to decide who we seek to be ruled by.

[LRRPF52]

China as a superpower is a myth propagated by disinformation sources that don't have any reputable assets in China to actually report on the ground truth there.

The US has maintained a force presence on the world's sea lanes since before the Second World War, and assumed an even larger one after the shrinking of the British Empire. China shares borders and critical coastline with:

Code:

Russia India Mongolia Nepal North Korea Kazakhstan South Korea Kyrgyzstan Japan Tajikistan Philippines Afghanistan Vietnam Pakistan Taiwan Bhutan Myanmar Tibet Laos

http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/jo...china.aspx

Maybe one out of 10,000 people you will ever meet is even remotely familiar with Chinese geography, their constraints, history, population, demographics, or politics. No matter what they do, they will never even come close to the physical capacity to deploy a navy or air force with the capabilities that the US has, because they simply don't have the sea ports to make it happen. China has the second largest concentration of deep sea ports along its coast in the world, which is about 1/3 of that the US's is. Northern Europe as a region would be next on that scale.

While China is clearly on an expansionist binge, scrambling for every resource, trade deal, and foreign mineral exploitation operation, they face monumental population, demographic, social, and political challenges that manifest themselves daily. As of 2011, they had experienced over 200 internal revolts against local corrupt governments, for example. With a population of 1.347 billion occupying land area that is less than half of the US, you can start to see how that's a reality.

They are also the historical authors of asymmetric warfare if you read Sun Tzu. Asymmetric warfare means that small arms will play an important, but peripheral role to intelligence and force flexibility.

Interesting to the discussion, China attempted to adopt a universal infantry cartridge system with the 5.8x42mm, which is lacking in long range performance, and is a bit long for an individual service rifle:

5.8x42mm on the right


I suspect they did this for ease of logistics purposes, and their propaganda services stated that it was to prevent "invaders" from being able to use common ammunition, which their Warsaw Pact chambered weapons would technically allow.

[woohoo]

A 130gr at 2550-2600fps with a long COL is totally doable with another bolt design, especially when you look at canister powders specifically for it. BjornF16 developed a load for his Savage 20" bolt-action Grendel with the 129gr Interbond on top of CFE, and was able to hit 2585fps before the velocities starting getting erratic. He used a longer COL of 2.350". If you went to 2.400" in a belt-fed, you could even get more case capacity.
.

Do you know how long a 130gr 6.5 green bullet would be? If you want a 130gr green bullet you'll need to step up to a 7mm at least. I know some hate the green thing but the mil is going that way like it or not.
On top of the new green bullets all new cartridges will need to be designed for poly or lsat which is thicker than brass. The operating pressures should be kept down to 55k psi max in 110 degree temps. That is the spec that killed the 6.8s performance and reason Remington downloaded their ammo.
The cases used in MGs should have more taper than the Grendel which will also reduce the capacity.
We've been talking about bullet designs on Tonys forum for months. Mass production, terminal performance and BC must be considered. Also if too heavy they will not meet the weight reduction requirements, if to light they will not have the terminal performance. Using litz's perfect bullet design which with lead core bullets usually end up with a .675 BC, the optimum design is apx 5 calibers long. A 6.5 ends up in the area of 110-115gr when green. The 6.8 bullets range 118-123gr and the 7mms 125-130gr. All bullets regardless of caliber can have the same BC when using the same formula Litz uses. It seems to me the weapons the military are having produced have shorter barrels. The MK48s being reworked now have barrels shorter than 20" according to the company reworking them. All of that works against smaller cartridges. IMO Murray did the research and came up with the right idea for a LMG cartridge that will perform better than the 7.62x54 at range while giving close to the same terminal performance.

[Tony Williams]

Do you know how long a 130gr 6.5 green bullet would be? If you want a 130gr green bullet you'll need to step up to a 7mm at least. I know some hate the green thing but the mil is going that way like it or not.

Not necessarily: the Barnes 6.5mm 126.5 grain LRX bullet is solid copper with a hollowpoint filled with a polymer tip. It measures c.35mm long (the same as a lead-cored 6.5mm 140 grain Berger VLD) which gives a length/diam ratio of around 5.2. The problem comes when you want a tracer version of the bullet….

Incidentally, the LRX has a G7 BC of .460, a G1 of .230 while the Berger's numbers are .612 and .313 respectively - the cost of going lead-free! OTOH the LRX will have a higher MV due to the reduced weight, even though the propellant space will be about the same.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Tony Williams,

Thank you for your clarification.

1, Using identical projectile style, how much longer would a 130-grain .264" diameter projectile be vs a 130-grain .277" diameter projectile?
2, To maintain the same length of a 130-grain .277" projectile, what weight would the .264" diameter projectile have to be?