Posts: 4,287
Threads: 156
Joined: Jan 2017
Not an expert in Army doctrine, but it seems to me that if one wants to count how many "rounds per kill", then only rounds directed to that purpose should be counted. What I mean is, if the purpose of fire, such as suppressive fire, is to allow maneuver, or rescue of a fallen solider, etc, then those rounds should not be counted as part of "rounds per kill". The other problem you have when trying to state "rounds per kill", is whether you have an accurate body count to start with, and only "count" those bodies that were done by the small arms fire - exclude CAS, artillery, etc casualties. Not sure how it's possible to get accurate counts on these then. "Rounds per kill" sounds more like some sort of pop-analytical term, unless you're talking about sniper fire, where rounds per kill could be fairly accurately counted.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
Posts: 2,555
Threads: 383
Joined: Sep 2013
grayfox Wrote:Not an expert in Army doctrine, but it seems to me that if one wants to count how many "rounds per kill", then only rounds directed to that purpose should be counted. What I mean is, if the purpose of fire, such as suppressive fire, is to allow maneuver, or rescue of a fallen solider, etc, then those rounds should not be counted as part of "rounds per kill". The other problem you have when trying to state "rounds per kill", is whether you have an accurate body count to start with, and only "count" those bodies that were done by the small arms fire - exclude CAS, artillery, etc casualties. Not sure how it's possible to get accurate counts on these then. "Rounds per kill" sounds more like some sort of pop-analytical term, unless you're talking about sniper fire, where rounds per kill could be fairly accurately counted.
Yes and no. From a stats perspective, absolutely it would be great to be able to actually determine the efficiency of individual soldiers, squads, etc. in terms of actual numbers of rounds fired in attempting to kill the enemy. By the same token, you could not count any enemy killed as a result of cover fire, right? There is no way to have that information, however. At best, the only data they have are body counts and ammo expended. That is as fine of resolution as you are going to get.
Bean counter terminology? Sure, but bean counter terminology used since at least WWII, but really coming into vogue with Vietnam and still being used today.
With that said, suppressive or covering fire (what you mentioned) is a fire superiority tactic to gain control of part of the current day battlefield, even if just for a short period of time. It burns of lots of ammo. Sometimes fortuitously, some of the enemy are killed by it. Having whiz-bang sights isn't going to reduce the amount rounds expended in gaining fire superiority in battle if you can't actually see your enemy. There is a lot of area target shooting that goes on instead of point target shooting. And so with this new 6.8 caliber that is capable of penetrating armor at much greater distances, a HUGE amount of those are going fired in the exact same manner as the current rounds are being used.
Posts: 1,285
Threads: 47
Joined: Feb 2019
Double Naught Spy Wrote:Yes and no. From a stats perspective, absolutely it would be great to be able to actually determine the efficiency of individual soldiers, squads, etc. in terms of actual numbers of rounds fired in attempting to kill the enemy. By the same token, you could not count any enemy killed as a result of cover fire, right? There is no way to have that information, however. At best, the only data they have are body counts and ammo expended. That is as fine of resolution as you are going to get.
Bean counter terminology? Sure, but bean counter terminology used since at least WWII, but really coming into vogue with Vietnam and still being used today.
With that said, suppressive or covering fire (what you mentioned) is a fire superiority tactic to gain control of part of the current day battlefield, even if just for a short period of time. It burns of lots of ammo. Sometimes fortuitously, some of the enemy are killed by it. Having whiz-bang sights isn't going to reduce the amount rounds expended in gaining fire superiority in battle if you can't actually see your enemy. There is a lot of area target shooting that goes on instead of point target shooting. And so with this new 6.8 caliber that is capable of penetrating armor at much greater distances, a HUGE amount of those are going fired in the exact same manner as the current rounds are being used.
And less effectively, since magazine size and round count available will be less.
Posts: 3,888
Threads: 211
Joined: Feb 2011
Double Naught Spy Wrote:There is a lot of area target shooting that goes on instead of point target shooting. And so with this new 6.8 caliber that is capable of penetrating armor at much greater distances, a HUGE amount of those are going fired in the exact same manner as the current rounds are being used.
Yes. This is the fatal flaw. Carrying all that bulk is the fatal flaw.
In THIS Youtube video, Mike Glover interviews Vietnam specops vet John Meyer who says their basic load was 600 rounds of 5.56. (See 11:40.)
:: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets
:: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::
Posts: 3,654
Threads: 17
Joined: Aug 2013
Carrying less ammunition because it is heavier does not necessarily mean you expend it quicker. There is no obligation to expend limited ammunition at an unidentified target, at least where I come from.
Some of our guys chose to use 7.62 instead of 5.56 in Afghanistan recently, meaning they carried less ammunition. They preferred hitting power over ammunition. No reports of running out of ammunition because of that choice.
Opposing that experience is the battle of Long Tan in 1966 where the guys were running out of ammunition and needed an emergency air drop to survive. No suggestion it was the guys carrying SLR's (7.62) over the M16's or vice versa that ran low first.
I put it down to fire discipline. If you have to shoot in the general direction of the enemy in fire and movement then shoot less and make them count.
Posts: 1,285
Threads: 47
Joined: Feb 2019
04-24-2022, 02:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 04-24-2022, 02:45 AM by lazyengineer.)
Klem Wrote:Carrying less ammunition because it is heavier does not necessarily mean you expend it quicker. There is no obligation to expend limited ammunition at an unidentified target, at least where I come from.
Some of our guys chose to use 7.62 instead of 5.56 in Afghanistan recently, meaning they carried less ammunition. They preferred hitting power over ammunition. No reports of running out of ammunition because of that choice.
Opposing that experience is the battle of Long Tan in 1966 where the guys were running out of ammunition and needed an emergency air drop to survive. No suggestion it was the guys carrying SLR's (7.62) over the M16's or vice versa that ran low first.
I put it down to fire discipline. If you have to shoot in the general direction of the enemy in fire and movement then shoot less and make them count.
It's a balance. If your entire group makes every shot count, they could stand to actually be overrun considerably faster. In military combat you really can miss fast enough to help win, as suppressive fire has a usefulness.
5.56 is an absolutely incredible little round, since due to it's relatively small case-diameter, you can stuff a whole bunch in a handy little mag and handy total-weapon-system at 30 rounds capacity. And the wall-thickness of a barrel and chamber can be thinner for the same pressure; allowing it to run 62000+ PSI in a small and light package, and so push that bullet to very effective and lethal effect due to that high pressure. A squad member going room to room with an M4 on full-auto, is going to be able to manage that light package and engage full-auto effectively, and not run out of ammo as fast.
On top of that, when it comes to rapid aimed engagement of effective fire, the NTIT course of fire at Camp Perry is a real eye opener on the lore of the "battle rifle" vs the effectiveness of a smaller-light "assault rifle". This is a stage where a 6 man fire time in prone position engages 8 silhottes at 600 yards. 50 seconds of semi-auto fire, hits count, misses don't. A competitive 5.56 fire-team will individually lay down about 25 hits per rifleman in those 50 seconds. With very few misses. An M14 team team can barely get half those number of aimed rounds down-on-target, and the miss ratio is considerably higher. A 5.56 round at 600 yards is plenty effective at incapacitating an enemy target, especially when you can get them downrange and on-target that much faster. Don't get me wrong, if you're engaging at 600+ yards, the .308 class round goes farther and hits harder, and when hunting game at 1 shot at a time, heavier makes sense. But the 5.56 capability to be a pragmatic 300 round loadout M4 room runner, and then send rounds out to 600 yards, is pretty tough to beat on both fronts at the same time. In a package that's quite light because of the DI gas system, which means no piston, but it also means a softer materials of construction like aluminum work; because the force balance is all in-line, and the receiver itself takes very little stress. At machine-gun rental ranges, aluminum AR15's outlast steel AK's.
If this 6.8 project is to have a supplemental DMR improved weapon, then that sounds great. If it's intended to outfit a whole squad of typical infantryman - it's a dumb project. And one that's never going to go anywhere, other than next years regularly scheduled "ARMY ADOPTS NEW RIFLE" headline (when no, not really, they didn't really).
Bringing it back full-circle; as a civilian who doesn't generally run full auto, and even if you do, needing a 300 round loadout isn't an item in our world. Grendel is ideal in the civilian world because you still get that light and handy AR15 weapon system package, with the hardest hitting and longest range general-purpose round you can fit into it. Would I outfit a regular GI squad with M4's in 6.5 Grendel over 5.56? maybe if I was in Afgahnistan and that extra range really mattered, but for general purpose do-all handy full-auto lots of rounds usage? Probably not.
Posts: 3,340
Threads: 46
Joined: Mar 2011
lazyengineer Wrote:It's a balance. If your entire group makes every shot count, they could stand to actually be overrun considerably faster. In military combat you really can miss fast enough to help win, as suppressive fire has a usefulness.
5.56 is an absolutely incredible little round, since due to it's relatively small case-diameter, you can stuff a whole bunch in a handy little mag and handy total-weapon-system at 30 rounds capacity. And the wall-thickness of a barrel and chamber can be thinner for the same pressure; allowing it to run 62000+ PSI in a small and light package, and so push that bullet to very effective and lethal effect due to that high pressure. A squad member going room to room with an M4 on full-auto, is going to be able to manage that light package and engage full-auto effectively, and not run out of ammo as fast.
On top of that, when it comes to rapid aimed engagement of effective fire, the NTIT course of fire at Camp Perry is a real eye opener on the lore of the "battle rifle" vs the effectiveness of a smaller-light "assault rifle". This is a stage where a 6 man fire time in prone position engages 8 silhottes at 600 yards. 50 seconds of semi-auto fire, hits count, misses don't. A competitive 5.56 fire-team will individually lay down about 25 hits per rifleman in those 50 seconds. With very few misses. An M14 team team can barely get half those number of aimed rounds down-on-target, and the miss ratio is considerably higher. A 5.56 round at 600 yards is plenty effective at incapacitating an enemy target, especially when you can get them downrange and on-target that much faster. Don't get me wrong, if you're engaging at 600+ yards, the .308 class round goes farther and hits harder, and when hunting game at 1 shot at a time, heavier makes sense. But the 5.56 capability to be a pragmatic 300 round loadout M4 room runner, and then send rounds out to 600 yards, is pretty tough to beat on both fronts at the same time. In a package that's quite light because of the DI gas system, which means no piston, but it also means a softer materials of construction like aluminum work; because the force balance is all in-line, and the receiver itself takes very little stress. At machine-gun rental ranges, aluminum AR15's outlast steel AK's.
If this 6.8 project is to have a supplemental DMR improved weapon, then that sounds great. If it's intended to outfit a whole squad of typical infantryman - it's a dumb project. And one that's never going to go anywhere, other than next years regularly scheduled "ARMY ADOPTS NEW RIFLE" headline (when no, not really, they didn't really).
Bringing it back full-circle; as a civilian who doesn't generally run full auto, and even if you do, needing a 300 round loadout isn't an item in our world. Grendel is ideal in the civilian world because you still get that light and handy AR15 weapon system package, with the hardest hitting and longest range general-purpose round you can fit into it. Would I outfit a regular GI squad with M4's in 6.5 Grendel over 5.56? maybe if I was in Afgahnistan and that extra range really mattered, but for general purpose do-all handy full-auto lots of rounds usage? Probably not.
LE:
No ones doctrine I know of uses automatic fire for CQC / CQB / or what ever it is called now. Note that SAW gunners will use three round bursts though.
You are comparing Infantry Trophy at Camp Perry to anything even bordering on reality within the US military? Or any military in the world for that matter?
You want Camp Perry to reflect the reality of the Army or Marines today, issue the service teams issued carbines, sights, and issued ball ammo when they arrive there. No more shooting coats or mitts either. Helmet, body armor, and full kit. Give them twenty rounds per man to zero and then go to town. Oh yes, no coaching.
Camp Perry is a game using firearms and ammunition whose outward appearance is the same as issued. After that, nothing about Camp Perry is even close to the reality of a military unit.
I am pretty indifferent about these Sig systems and this 6.8 cartridge. I think it probably fits the demands of the military as the military sees them today and if so, it may be a first in our history.
One thing for sure is that the bitching about the power of the round ought to end.
LR-55
Posts: 3,214
Threads: 215
Joined: Jun 2011
Does anyone know if these new weapons have nitride or chrome lined barrels??
Posts: 500
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2014
lazyengineer Wrote:It's a balance. If your entire group makes every shot count, they could stand to actually be overrun considerably faster. In military combat you really can miss fast enough to help win, as suppressive fire has a usefulness.
5.56 is an absolutely incredible little round, since due to it's relatively small case-diameter, you can stuff a whole bunch in a handy little mag and handy total-weapon-system at 30 rounds capacity. And the wall-thickness of a barrel and chamber can be thinner for the same pressure; allowing it to run 62000+ PSI in a small and light package, and so push that bullet to very effective and lethal effect due to that high pressure. A squad member going room to room with an M4 on full-auto, is going to be able to manage that light package and engage full-auto effectively, and not run out of ammo as fast.
On top of that, when it comes to rapid aimed engagement of effective fire, the NTIT course of fire at Camp Perry is a real eye opener on the lore of the "battle rifle" vs the effectiveness of a smaller-light "assault rifle". This is a stage where a 6 man fire time in prone position engages 8 silhottes at 600 yards. 50 seconds of semi-auto fire, hits count, misses don't. A competitive 5.56 fire-team will individually lay down about 25 hits per rifleman in those 50 seconds. With very few misses. An M14 team team can barely get half those number of aimed rounds down-on-target, and the miss ratio is considerably higher. A 5.56 round at 600 yards is plenty effective at incapacitating an enemy target, especially when you can get them downrange and on-target that much faster. Don't get me wrong, if you're engaging at 600+ yards, the .308 class round goes farther and hits harder, and when hunting game at 1 shot at a time, heavier makes sense. But the 5.56 capability to be a pragmatic 300 round loadout M4 room runner, and then send rounds out to 600 yards, is pretty tough to beat on both fronts at the same time. In a package that's quite light because of the DI gas system, which means no piston, but it also means a softer materials of construction like aluminum work; because the force balance is all in-line, and the receiver itself takes very little stress. At machine-gun rental ranges, aluminum AR15's outlast steel AK's.
If this 6.8 project is to have a supplemental DMR improved weapon, then that sounds great. If it's intended to outfit a whole squad of typical infantryman - it's a dumb project. And one that's never going to go anywhere, other than next years regularly scheduled "ARMY ADOPTS NEW RIFLE" headline (when no, not really, they didn't really).
Bringing it back full-circle; as a civilian who doesn't generally run full auto, and even if you do, needing a 300 round loadout isn't an item in our world. Grendel is ideal in the civilian world because you still get that light and handy AR15 weapon system package, with the hardest hitting and longest range general-purpose round you can fit into it. Would I outfit a regular GI squad with M4's in 6.5 Grendel over 5.56? maybe if I was in Afgahnistan and that extra range really mattered, but for general purpose do-all handy full-auto lots of rounds usage? Probably not.
Regarding the last paragraph... SOCOM tested the Grendel, which I was an early adopter in my area and still have two and love... But 6ARC is what they're using and why I have two as it's NOW the best all around cartridge that'll fit in the AR-15...
Posts: 3,340
Threads: 46
Joined: Mar 2011
danm Wrote:Regarding the last paragraph... SOCOM tested the Grendel, which I was an early adopter in my area and still have two and love... But 6ARC is what they're using and why I have two as it's NOW the best all around cartridge that'll fit in the AR-15...
Dan:
I still can't find anything saying the 6 ARC has been adopted by the mil. Can you send a link please?
LR-55
Posts: 399
Threads: 39
Joined: Jul 2011
LR1955 Wrote:Dan:
I still can't find anything saying the 6 ARC has been adopted by the mil. Can you send a link please?
LR-55
Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s
20:06 mark.
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 42
Joined: Aug 2011
m796rider Wrote:Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s
20:06 mark.
"In the first time in history, maybe, certainly the first time I've ever experienced it, you had the Department of Defense, adopt and field a cartridge and that cartridge had not been commercially available."
Um, like the .223/5.56 and the 6.8 SPC? Geez. Perhaps people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about.
A very sloppy choice of words. It appears they have 'fielded' the round. Certainly they haven't 'adopted' it.
Paul Peloquin
Did government credibility die of Covid or with Covid?
Posts: 399
Threads: 39
Joined: Jul 2011
biodsl Wrote:"In the first time in history, maybe, certainly the first time I've ever experienced it, you had the Department of Defense, adopt and field a cartridge and that cartridge had not been commercially available."
Um, like the .223/5.56 and the 6.8 SPC? Geez. Perhaps people shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about.
A very sloppy choice of words. It appears they have 'fielded' the round. Certainly they haven't 'adopted' it.
Not the entirety of DoD or any service branch as a Program of Record. But SOCOM for sure is using 6ARC and continues to have very wide latitude in terms of procuring small arms and ammunition. This is in contrast to 6.8SPC, which was never even fielded (as in at the unit level and above, vs individuals bringing their own personal weapons into the mix).
Posts: 313
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2019
04-25-2022, 05:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2022, 03:31 AM by Fess.)
montana Wrote:Does anyone know if these new weapons have nitride or chrome lined barrels??
SIG already uses nitrided barrel in their 716 series from which the "Spear" was developed. There have been some reports that they use "maraging" steel, a high strength alloy for some of their components (bolt, feed ramps), but I can't verify it it is used in the barrel. Maraging steel is extremely tough stuff. The tail hooks of naval aircraft use it, for example.
As for the barrel bore coating or treatment, I suspect nitriding for the rifle but maybe chrome for the machinegun. This is based on an interview on Forgotten Weapons with a representative from Faxon, a company that makes both nitrided and chrome lined barrels. He stated that the existing SIG 716 uses nitriding to increase barrel life and corrosion resistance. The Faxon rep stated that nitro-carburizing (nitriding, meloniting) is better for many weapons, but chrome is still better for machineguns. He said that it had to do with the fact that chrome has better high temperature properties than nitrocarburized steel. Nitriding diffuses nitrogen and carbon into the surface layer of existing steel. This makes the surface harder but does not change its thickness. With a chrome-lined barrel, layer of chrome is applied on top of the steel and is chemically bonded to it. This makes the surface of the barrel bore a composite structure. During long bursts, the steel making up the barrel gets hot enough to anneal (soften) and according to the Faxon guy, and the rifling on a nitrtocarburized barrel "begins to fade" whereas the rifling on a chrome lined barrel does not. (Note: Faxon makes button-rifled barrels and he did not mention if the problem was as severe with cut-rifling barrels). I have included a link about the acceptance of nitriding and when chrome lining is still preferred. The Faxon guy talks more about nitriding earlier in the video, if that is of any interest to you.
https://youtu.be/e2X1iaQbjg8?t=426
Posts: 500
Threads: 11
Joined: Aug 2014
m796rider Wrote:Hornady video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtZUxn2Je-8&t=2195s
20:06 mark.
Thanks, that's what I was referring to.
Posts: 3,214
Threads: 215
Joined: Jun 2011
Thank you for the information,
I have seen a lot of positive remarks about Nitride barrels but was wondering if the military had decided to change course from chrome..Thanks again!
Posts: 3,214
Threads: 215
Joined: Jun 2011
Fess Wrote:SIG already uses nitrided barrel in their 716 series from which the "Spear" was developed. There have been some reports that they use "maraging" steel, a high strength allow for some of their components (bolt, feed ramps), but I can't verify it it is used in the barrel. Maraging steel is extremely tough stuff. The tail hooks of naval aircraft use it, for example.
As for the barrel bore coating or treatment, I suspect nitriding for the rifle but maybe chrome for the machinegun. This is based on an interview on Forgotten Weapons with a representative from Faxon, a company that makes both nitrided and chrome lined barrels. He stated that the existing SIG 716 uses nitriding to increase barrel life and corrosion resistance. The Faxon rep stated that nitro-carburizing (nitriding, meloniting) is better for many weapons, but chrome is still better for machineguns. He said that it had to do with the fact that chrome has better high temperature properties than nitrocarburized steel. Nitriding diffuses nitrogen and carbon into the surface layer of existing steel. This makes the surface harder but does not change its thickness. With a chrome-lined barrel, layer of chrome is applied on top of the steel and is chemically bonded to it. This makes the surface of the barrel bore a composite structure. During long bursts, the steel making up the barrel gets hot enough to anneal (soften) and according to the Faxon guy, and the rifling on a nitrtocarburized barrel "begins to fade" whereas the rifling on a chrome lined barrel does not. (Note: Faxon makes button-rifled barrels and he did not mention if the problem was as severe with cut-rifling barrels). I have included a link about the acceptance of nitriding and when chrome lining is still preferred. The Faxon guy talks more about nitriding earlier in the video, if that is of any interest to you.
https://youtu.be/e2X1iaQbjg8?t=426
Thank you for the information,
I have seen a lot of positive remarks about Nitride barrels but was wondering if the military had decided to change course from chrome..Thanks again!
Posts: 313
Threads: 13
Joined: Jun 2019
LR1955 Wrote:LE:
I am pretty indifferent about these Sig systems and this 6.8 cartridge. I think it probably fits the demands of the military as the military sees them today and if so, it may be a first in our history.
One thing for sure is that the bitching about the power of the round ought to end.
LR-55
From what I have read, the Army decided that it needed a certain amount of energy at long range. Exactly why, I don't know for certain, but the ability of a single PKM gunner to pin down US forces at "stand off" distances is certainly part of it. The US preference for shorter and shorter barrels is not helping.
Another potential reason for the more powerful cartridge has surfaced in the current events in Ukraine. Much of the body armor being encountered is less than level 4. Although tungsten penetrators would be required to reliably get through level 4, steel penetrators can deal with lesser body armor, but it takes velocity and mass. This desire to get better performance from steel penetrators makes a lot more sense once you realize that the US and the "Free World Countries" in general do not have large amounts of tungsten reserves. As it turns out, China and Russia have more tungsten than the rest of the countries in the world combined.
To be honest, the NGSW program may prove to be most useful as a learning exercise. The design and testing phase for a new weapon and ammo have been shortened when compared to previous ones, and the US is gaining experience with two new types of ammo as well as an advanced optic. Some argue that the optic is the most important result of the program. Initial fielding is also small enough that a course correction is more likely if problems show up.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2704...hat%20year.
Posts: 3,340
Threads: 46
Joined: Mar 2011
Fess Wrote:From what I have read, the Army decided that it needed a certain amount of energy at long range. Exactly why, I don't know for certain, but the ability of a single PKM gunner to pin down US forces at "stand off" distances is certainly part of it. The US preference for shorter and shorter barrels is not helping.
Another potential reason for the more powerful cartridge has surfaced in the current events in Ukraine. Much of the body armor being encountered is less than level 4. Although tungsten penetrators would be required to reliably get through level 4, steel penetrators can deal with lesser body armor, but it takes velocity and mass. This desire to get better performance from steel penetrators makes a lot more sense once you realize that the US and the "Free World Countries" in general do not have large amounts of tungsten reserves. As it turns out, China and Russia have more tungsten than the rest of the countries in the world combined.
To be honest, the NGSW program may prove to be most useful as a learning exercise. The design and testing phase for a new weapon and ammo have been shortened when compared to previous ones, and the US is gaining experience with two new types of ammo as well as an advanced optic. Some argue that the optic is the most important result of the program. Initial fielding is also small enough that a course correction is more likely if problems show up.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/2704...hat%20year.
Fess:
Interesting theory. I tend to think that like the M-855, the new ammo is intended to defeat todays and a future body armor.
As for a single PKM gunner pinning down US forces, I doubt it unless those US forces chose not to return fire with M-240's or maneuver. PKM shoots a round that is at best marginal compared to our 7.62 NATO and Infantry units have plenty of M-240's.
I agree with your final comment though. Any piece of gear is fielded to specific units for a while to see if they meet requirements. I am sure that lessons learned will be incorporated into changes to the system. Ammo seems to be the cheapest factor until the decision is made to change and then re-tooling will be a significant cost factor.
LR-55
Posts: 278
Threads: 30
Joined: Nov 2016
LR1955 Wrote:Fess:
PKM shoots a round that is at best marginal compared to our 7.62 NATO
LR-55
LR, would you mind elaborating on this? 7.62x54R has a (slightly) higher velocity than 7.62x51mm, shoots similar weight projectiles, has a history of pretty decent accuracy, and the PKM (and the like-chambered Dragunov sniper rifle) aren't known for reliability problems. I didn't get a ton of trigger time on the PKM but it seemed functional and I never saw a stoppage. I'm not saying it's superior to 7.62x51mm, but I think it holds it's own for use in a GP machinegun.
Just my 2 cents.
John
|
