06-30-2013, 05:31 AM
The military needs to define what it's looking for first, if anything. Since there doesn't seem to be any real push from the military, there's a vacuum of sorts, filled by various people who think they know what the military needs. I have yet to see a specific request from the upper levels of the Pentagon issuing a needs statement for a new small arms cartridge and systems that will shoot it.
I disagree with the premise that everything outperforms 5.56 NATO, since there isn't another cartridge that can give a unit the same endurance for the same load and logistics footprint. 5.45x39 comes close, but still takes up a little more space, while providing an excellent form factor for exterior ballistics. Its terminal ballistics has been a point of debate for years, ever since the Soviet-Afghan War anecdotes about the "poison bullet".
I also disagree with requirements to be controllable on burst or automatic fire, since professional infantrymen and combat arms personnel don't shoot on automatic from service rifles or carbines, with a few exceptions. However, the ability to be controllable on auto also transfers over to being controllable while firing rapid strings of fire on SEMI automatic. The point isn't to question controllability, rather to emphasize a realistic understanding of how infantry weapons are actually employed.
Most would agree that 5.56 NATO isn't an ideal cartridge for ranges that it wasn't meant to engage targets with (200/300m and beyond), and that 7.62 NATO takes up too much space and weight on dismounted soldiers' loads, while exhibiting too much recoil that stresses weapons quickly, requiring heavier weapons, and exhibiting difficult tracking when firing for these reasons.
Soldiers who have experienced the downrange performance of 7.62 value that type of energy and trajectory, but would welcome this capability in a smaller, lighter package. They're an easy sell. The logisticians and procurement types at the upper levels need to be sold, as do the porkulent politicians who want to know what's in it for their districts. They could care less what it is, as long as some Colonel or General declares it's the best thing since sliced bread, and defense contractors are willing to spend billions in their home State or Congressional district.
That said, there isn't the amount of interest in small arms by porculicians, since the margins aren't usually in the billions. As to designing the cartridge itself, I would start with terminal performance requirements on personnel and material, then move backwards to exterior ballistics requirements (trajectory and wind drift), then to internal ballistics requirements, which will drive cartridge dimensions, powders, pressures, weapon size, ammunition feeding devices and mechanisms, etc.
There have been several viable cartridges already developed and demonstrated since after The Great War (.276 Pedersen, .270 Enfield, .280 Enfield, 6mm SAW, and now the 6.5 Grendel). A cartridge that fits inside a detachable box magazine that will stagger for maximum capacity per space, and can still be called an intermediate cartridge will not really do much that the Grendel can't as far as practical performance is concerned. Anything larger in rim diameter is no longer an intermediate cartridge and will be too large for a lightweight/low-recoiling weapon, and within those constraints, it would be difficult to match the BC advantage of the 6.5mm bore diameter, unless some uniquely long projectiles were made for 6.35mm.
The main improvements you could make would be getting Grendel performance in a narrower cartridge, which is going to require some pretty high pressure if even possible without exceeding Grendel COAL.
I disagree with the premise that everything outperforms 5.56 NATO, since there isn't another cartridge that can give a unit the same endurance for the same load and logistics footprint. 5.45x39 comes close, but still takes up a little more space, while providing an excellent form factor for exterior ballistics. Its terminal ballistics has been a point of debate for years, ever since the Soviet-Afghan War anecdotes about the "poison bullet".
I also disagree with requirements to be controllable on burst or automatic fire, since professional infantrymen and combat arms personnel don't shoot on automatic from service rifles or carbines, with a few exceptions. However, the ability to be controllable on auto also transfers over to being controllable while firing rapid strings of fire on SEMI automatic. The point isn't to question controllability, rather to emphasize a realistic understanding of how infantry weapons are actually employed.
Most would agree that 5.56 NATO isn't an ideal cartridge for ranges that it wasn't meant to engage targets with (200/300m and beyond), and that 7.62 NATO takes up too much space and weight on dismounted soldiers' loads, while exhibiting too much recoil that stresses weapons quickly, requiring heavier weapons, and exhibiting difficult tracking when firing for these reasons.
Soldiers who have experienced the downrange performance of 7.62 value that type of energy and trajectory, but would welcome this capability in a smaller, lighter package. They're an easy sell. The logisticians and procurement types at the upper levels need to be sold, as do the porkulent politicians who want to know what's in it for their districts. They could care less what it is, as long as some Colonel or General declares it's the best thing since sliced bread, and defense contractors are willing to spend billions in their home State or Congressional district.
That said, there isn't the amount of interest in small arms by porculicians, since the margins aren't usually in the billions. As to designing the cartridge itself, I would start with terminal performance requirements on personnel and material, then move backwards to exterior ballistics requirements (trajectory and wind drift), then to internal ballistics requirements, which will drive cartridge dimensions, powders, pressures, weapon size, ammunition feeding devices and mechanisms, etc.
There have been several viable cartridges already developed and demonstrated since after The Great War (.276 Pedersen, .270 Enfield, .280 Enfield, 6mm SAW, and now the 6.5 Grendel). A cartridge that fits inside a detachable box magazine that will stagger for maximum capacity per space, and can still be called an intermediate cartridge will not really do much that the Grendel can't as far as practical performance is concerned. Anything larger in rim diameter is no longer an intermediate cartridge and will be too large for a lightweight/low-recoiling weapon, and within those constraints, it would be difficult to match the BC advantage of the 6.5mm bore diameter, unless some uniquely long projectiles were made for 6.35mm.
The main improvements you could make would be getting Grendel performance in a narrower cartridge, which is going to require some pretty high pressure if even possible without exceeding Grendel COAL.