06-18-2011, 09:38 AM
While I laud the motivation for carrying out such testing, I must draw attention to the recent ARDEC calibre study which may make it unnecessary.
The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm. MV and ME varied by calibre. Shooting tests included Angle of Attack (yaw) at 50m and 300m and barrier and post barrier penetration in 20% ordnance gel using many of the FBI test targets (Level IIIA vest, glass, concrete, steel plate) and the 2005 JWB-IPT protocol. An analysis was then done with the raw data of EKE (Kinetic Energy), Pi/Pi/h versus weight, cost, felt recoil, etc. High speed photos were captured of all shots as were images of the bullet fragments. Finite Element Simulations were then developed for expected performance out to 600m (the expected maximum range for future rifle fire).
The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board with the exception of Stowed Kills, which is always slanted towards the smaller, lighter calibres.
So it seems that the technical argument has been won. The problem will be to get the Army to act on its own findings. The message seems to have been acknowledged at least to some extent, since future LSAT development will be aimed at delivering improved long-range performance over any 5.56mm loading. Intermediate calibres are now to be examined by the LSAT team, but it would obviously be much quicker and cheaper to resolve the optimum calibre/ballistics/bullet type using conventional ammo and gun techology before redesigning LSAT (and preferably with Geneva-compliant bullets as a part of the development).
It is also important to bear in mind that there are three separate reasons for adopting an intermediate calibre:
1. To improve on the terminal effectiveness, barrier penetration and long-range ballistics of the 5.56mm.
2. To match the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with significantly less ammo weight and recoil.
3. To save on procurement, training and support costs by fielding only one calibre and weapon range in portable small arms rather than two.
Our focus tends to be on the first two of these, but I suspect that it's the third one which will prove to be the strongest argument (although of course, it only applies if the first two can be achieved).
The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm. MV and ME varied by calibre. Shooting tests included Angle of Attack (yaw) at 50m and 300m and barrier and post barrier penetration in 20% ordnance gel using many of the FBI test targets (Level IIIA vest, glass, concrete, steel plate) and the 2005 JWB-IPT protocol. An analysis was then done with the raw data of EKE (Kinetic Energy), Pi/Pi/h versus weight, cost, felt recoil, etc. High speed photos were captured of all shots as were images of the bullet fragments. Finite Element Simulations were then developed for expected performance out to 600m (the expected maximum range for future rifle fire).
The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board with the exception of Stowed Kills, which is always slanted towards the smaller, lighter calibres.
So it seems that the technical argument has been won. The problem will be to get the Army to act on its own findings. The message seems to have been acknowledged at least to some extent, since future LSAT development will be aimed at delivering improved long-range performance over any 5.56mm loading. Intermediate calibres are now to be examined by the LSAT team, but it would obviously be much quicker and cheaper to resolve the optimum calibre/ballistics/bullet type using conventional ammo and gun techology before redesigning LSAT (and preferably with Geneva-compliant bullets as a part of the development).
It is also important to bear in mind that there are three separate reasons for adopting an intermediate calibre:
1. To improve on the terminal effectiveness, barrier penetration and long-range ballistics of the 5.56mm.
2. To match the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm with significantly less ammo weight and recoil.
3. To save on procurement, training and support costs by fielding only one calibre and weapon range in portable small arms rather than two.
Our focus tends to be on the first two of these, but I suspect that it's the third one which will prove to be the strongest argument (although of course, it only applies if the first two can be achieved).