04-27-2017, 02:04 PM
BluntForceTrauma Wrote:LR, solid argument.
What this says to me is that IF a military was to institute a cartridge other than 5.56, THEN it doesn't necessarily need to be more than something like 6.5 Grendel. For example, it wouldn't need to be the .264 USA with an OAL of 2.60. In the "real world," grunts can rarely use its extra range relative to its extra weight and bulk.
Whether or not a military should adopt the 65G is a separate question, but what your analysis says to me is that they should NOT adopt something like a 264USA for the standard carbine.
Devil's Advocate question: Does your analysis also argue against the necessity of 7.62 NATO in a medium machine gun? Side-by-side, what does a 762N MMG in a mount do in a beaten zone at 800m, for example, that a theoretical 65G LMG in the same mount at the same range with a 123gr VLD FMJ doesn't do? (Here I am assuming very similar external ballistics to M80.)
John:
I guess you could make a 'VLD' ogive for ball ammo. In fact, if you look at issued M-80, it is getting close. However, a true VLD comes with function and accuracy issues and most likely huge increases in cost of production. I would say that a LMG in 6.5 / 08 using simple 130 or 140 grain bullets would have a huge edge over issued M-80 ball. A 30 grain capacity cartridge would only equal M-80 and that is given a very specific bullet whose design would be monumentally expensive and may not be capable of the types of cores or tips that enhance terminal performance without reducing the exterior ballistic capability.
If you want to say that a 30 grain capacity cartridge that is max loaded with a 123 grain Lapua match bullet equals or exceeds the exterior ballistic performance of a round of issued lead core M-80 ball, I would say that in most cases it would. Some lots of M-80 may surprise you, though. However, the terminal effects at long distances like 800 or 1000 meters may favor the M-80 over a match grade bullet simply due to the jacket thickness of the ball ammo.
LR55