LRRPF52 Wrote:I would also stipulate that the new projectile meet or exceed 7.62 NATO M80 lethality out to 600m, and exceed its penetration of standardized mediums at 500m. I'm not sure how lethality can be measured for developmental testing, since there is no scientific baseline to establish it...
The only way I can think of is by comparing gel tests, for equal or better wound trauma.
Quote:The design I shared with a company in North Carolina 8 years ago peaked their interest, but I never followed up with it. It basically uses some ideas from the Russian improved 5.45mm projectile named 7N10, with a stacked cone narrow rod of tungsten or hardened steel, with a lead filler, and a uniquely shaped internal tip for the lead with a hollow nose cavity, and a thin full metal jacket with cannelure. This was for a 5.56 project, but the same thing could be applied to any larger caliber of course.Unfortunately, use of lead and tungsten rule out such a design.
Quote:I would like to approach the new cartridge specs from 1) on-target performance, 2) Trajectory requirements, and 3) weight limitation constraint parameters. Then look at projectile dimensions, cartridge geometry, propellants, and links.Sounds good to me. What do you have in mind for item number 1) on-target performance?
I think we can all agree that 6mm is the bare minimum in acceptable diameter to get the length/weight we need, and 7mm is probably the maximum to keep weight and recoil down, while finding the best aero-dynamic performance from a mass-produced projectile.
6mm offers the best terms in recoil & weight reduction and aerodynamics simultaneously, and possibly penetration and wound effects if it can yaw in tissue and fly straight through the standardized barrier mediums. It also would be easy to get to velocity, but could introduce over-bore problems for throat/barrel life.
The 6.5 seems to alleviate a lot of the potential drawbacks of 6mm, but poses significant challenges with regards to case capacity getting it to 2800 fps.
Do we all concur on this?