Requirements for Replacement of Currently Issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-80.

[stanc]

The phrasing was: "as lethal as 7.62mm to 1000 metres"

Is it possible to achieve that? And if so, can anybody hit a gel block at that distance to demonstrate it's just as lethal?

[LRRPF52]

stanc,

I agree, the 5.8x42 has proven whimpy for them out of LMG's, which is why I think we all agreed that 6mm is the basement on this one. The topic of sabots has got the gears turning again because I have been interested in them for many years...especially in an LMG, where it's common to mix a certain type of bullet with another...i.e.: tracer to ball mix. If a hyper-velocity sabot-launched AP round were included in that mix, or proved to be viable enough for the primary ammo type, that would be a game-changer. If they're getting rifle velocities out of the 6.5x25, imagine what a 5.56 would do...

Before the Great War of 1914-1918, several advancements in weaponry had taken place: the machinegun, repeating rifle, the armored car/tank, the aeroplane, guncotton, & the submarine. I think this generation is headed into another stage like that, where introduction of certain technologies will make things from the last century obsolete and painfully inferior on the battlefield, to the surprise of him who wasn't vigilant enough in pursuing his defense posture intelligently and aggressively. Many of those inventions were pioneered by free-thinking experimenters in their family shops or garages, or nutty professors like Nobel.

The Chinese and Indians have literally billions of people to siphon from to drive these developments, while Russia rakes in billions in profit from the sale of natural gas and oil. Since China and India don't have enough real estate or food production to feed their people, the stress has to be relieved at some point. Need I mention the vacuum for advanced military hardware that exists in the Middle East? Saudi Arabia and Dubai have ordered the largest Foreign Military Sales schedules in the history of mankind, totaling over $120 billion.

He who introduces a system to defeat yesteryear's designs and capabilities will have a decisive edge on the future battlefield. On a more primitive note, I ordered some Lapua 144gr for some tests...

LRRPF52

[z06man]

I want to express my appreciation to the contributors to this thread. It has been very interesting and educational. It's kinda like sitting in on a R&D meeting.

Also in reference to creating hypervelocity projectiles, what speed do you consider hypervelocity? My understanding is that we are near the limits of velocities with modern smokeless propellents around 4000 fps for bullets due to the fact that they have a maximum expansion rate in the 5000 fps range.

[stanc]

On a more primitive note, I ordered some Lapua 144gr for some tests...

Excellent! Looking forward to the results.

On a related note, I've wondered for some time how to do some valid comparative testing on 6-7mm bullets. The trouble is, insofar as FMJs are concerned, none of those available are of the same type or have weights proportional to caliber.

6mm ----- 80gr flat base in .243 Win.
6.5mm -- 140gr boat tail in 6.5mm Swede.
7mm ---- 140gr flat base in 7mm Mauser.
7.62mm - 147gr boat tail in 7.62mm NATO.

Today I came across Federal's "Fusion" line, with bonded-core, (protected?) soft-nose bullets, in the following calibers:

6mm ----- 95gr in .243 Win.
6.5mm -- 120gr in .260 Rem.
7mm ---- 140gr in 7mm-08 Rem.
7.62mm - 150gr in .308 Win.

I'm not sure just how worthwhile it'd be to test them, but the fact that all have the same boat-tail design, with weights roughly proportional, and made by the same manufacturer, loaded in the same basic case...

[LRRPF52]

stanc,

I was actually looking through Midway's selection of protected tip, bonded core bullets yesterday as well. They might be a good baseline from which to drill into the core, then insert a steel or other hard metal rod.

What I'm addressing with the various duty positions is the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers would be encumbered if they were to be saddled with anything heavier than an M4, with less ammunition capacity. That includes...

* Combat Medics
* Forward Observers
* RTO's
* USAF TAC-P's
* Assistant Machine-Gunners
* Ammo Bearers
* Javelin Gunners
* Platoon Leaders
* Rifle Squad Leaders
* Fire Team Leaders
* 1st Sergeants
* Company Commanders
* Platoon Sergeants
* Combat Engineers

I could go on, but you see the point. If you really want to hear the moaning and complaining, issue these guys something heavier than an M4, with heavier ammunition, who will most unlikely or never be trained in wind-doping skills, right along with the riflemen who rely on them for all kinds of support. I can see the Gun Rag articles now..."Everyone remembers the days of the wonderfully-lightweight M4 carbine, (a superb carbine with a nasty little cartridge with devastating wound effects, highly-preferred by Special Forces soldiers) before the Army came along and adopted this horrible monster..."

LRRPF52

[LRRPF52]

Oh, I also have the new unubtanium Lapua .260 Rem brass, so this will be fun on a few levels for me. I've been necking-down Winchester 7mm-08 brass, since it is harder than the Remington .260 brass, and I've gotten up to 4 re-loads out of it running pretty hot loads. I'm pushing 123 Scenars at 2960, and 130 Berger VLD's at 2850, with cratering primers, and light ejector swipes. I reached my, "Ok, this is too far..." load when the naked 130's pierced primers and my chrono made huge jumps and drops over 100 fps in the spread, so I came down from that quite a bit. I had to dig the remains of some primers out from around my firing pin when I broke her down, and my firing pin retaining pin was badly disfigured. I'm thinking if I got my firing pin hole bushed and the pin matched to it that I could prevent that, but I'm already well over book figures. The AR10 bolt and barrel extension can take a lot more beating than a 5.56 one...

I'll have to take it easy with the 144 FMJ's, and drop down quite a bit for starting loads. I'm using N540 for the .260 right now, and getting .75 MOA with my initial loads, so it has some room to be tweaked.

LRRPF52

[stanc]

I was actually looking through Midway's selection of protected tip, bonded core bullets yesterday as well. They might be a good baseline from which to drill into the core, then insert a steel or other hard metal rod.

I was thinking similarly, wondering if there might be bullets which could be used to emulate the M855A1/M80A1 projectiles. Figured that perhaps Federal's Trophy Bonded Tip might be usable: pull the plastic tip and drill out the lead core, but leaving the solid base unaltered.

[stanc]

What I'm addressing with the various duty positions is the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers would be encumbered if they were to be saddled with anything heavier than an M4, with less ammunition capacity. That includes...Combat Medics, Forward Observers, etc.

I could go on, but you see the point. If you really want to hear the moaning and complaining, issue these guys something heavier than an M4, with heavier ammunition, who will most unlikely or never be trained in wind-doping skills, right along with the riflemen who rely on them for all kinds of support. I can see the Gun Rag articles now..."Everyone remembers the days of the wonderfully-lightweight M4 carbine, (a superb carbine with a nasty little cartridge with devastating wound effects, highly-preferred by Special Forces soldiers) before the Army came along and adopted this horrible monster..."

Heh, heh, heh.

Yes, I do see your point. And IIRC, LR1955 has said that most infantry riflemen -- even if given a more capable cartridge -- would still be unable to hit long range targets.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a signifcant number of (US and UK) troops who are calling for longer "reach" from their individual weapon than 5.56 can deliver. Are they to be ignored?

What if a new cartridge can be created that doesn't impose a great weight penalty, and thereby (maybe) avoid being a "horrible monster"?

[JASmith]

...What I'm addressing with the various duty positions is the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers would be encumbered if they were to be saddled with anything heavier than an M4, with less ammunition capacity...

which explains the difficulty of creating a "one size fits all" requirement or specification.

A cartridge like the 6.5X25 CBJ in a small family of weapons, e. g., a pistol of near-classic appearance, an 8" barrel weapon collapsible to an 8" X 12" X 1.5" package, and a folding-stock carbine could be of significant interest to these folks.

The challenge is that the nominal performance requirements would almost certainly be different than those one would ask of a cartridge/weapon system devoted to the dismounted infantry.

Cheers!

[Tony Williams]

A cartridge like the 6.5X25 CBJ in a small family of weapons, e. g., a pistol of near-classic appearance, an 8" barrel weapon collapsible to an 8" X 12" X 1.5" package, and a folding-stock carbine could be of significant interest to these folks.

I had the same thought with respect to the cartridge, but IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9 shown below. It's good for 200m, very light and compact and a real honey to shoot, being very controllable in full auto:

[JASmith]

I had the same thought with respect to the cartridge, but IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9 shown below. It's good for 200m, very light and compact and a real honey to shoot, being very controllable in full auto...

I had noted that the armor defeat capability of the sabot-based round is really helped by longer barrels, so figured that we should hold some options open for the purposes of exploration.

It's a further reminder of the need to create a set of notional requirements instead of just one. We've got too many folks in this thread who think of the dismounted infantry as a system best optimized with a combined-arms approach. I applaud the thinking because the approach actually strengthens the conclusions will reach.

I will submit, however, that even today there's a bunch folks, e. g. Civil Affairs teams, who do get out in the boondocks without a lot of immediate support. Folks like that need weapons appropriate for a wider variety of engagement ranges than the nominal squad and platoon.

But, the wide-ranging discussions sure complicate a forum thread and makes it very difficult to track back and reference!!

[stanc]

...IMO you could replace all three of your suggested guns with the B&T MP9...

I really like the MP9, and consider it nearly the ideal PDW. Only complaint I have is the charging handle; the first time I tried to pull it back, my fingers slipped off and I ended up with a couple of skinned knuckles. :mad:

I truly detest the T-handle, not only on the MP9, but the M16, too. Give me a proper bolt handle on the side...

Oh, one other thing: IMO, it isn't feasible for a PDW like the MP9 to replace all pistols. The are some individuals (e.g., high-ranking officers, military police, criminal investigators) for whom a pistol is simply better suited, due to size and weight.

[Tony Williams]

IMO, it isn't feasible for a PDW like the MP9 to replace all pistols. The are some individuals (e.g., high-ranking officers, military police, criminal investigators) for whom a pistol is simply better suited, due to size and weight.

I agree that there there will still be some use for pistols for those who will probably never use them except to threaten people, especially if they need concealed carry. However, for only about double the size and weight, a compact SMG like the MP9 offers vastly greater effectiveness and is the obvious choice for a PDW.

[JASmith]

...for only about double the size and weight, a compact SMG like the MP9 offers vastly greater effectiveness and is the obvious choice for a PDW.

One presumes that the MP9 doesn't need to be always opened up and deployed on a sling for instant use. How does one carry the darned thing when working on a vehicle, at a desk, etc.?

Are there cases that allow it to be carried in more than one position?

[Tony Williams]

[JASmith]

Han Solo are we?

It is easier to carry than the M-1 Carbine which was issued to folks very much like the ones in the list LRRPF52.

Having said that, I can see a quick transition to an under the shoulder or back carry for everyday duties.

[stanc]

I can see a quick transition to an under the shoulder or back carry for everyday duties.

There was a shoulder holster made for the MP9's predecessor, the Steyr TMP. One might think that shoulder or chest carry could also be made for the MP9.

Here's a Portuguese soldier w/MP9 on leg rig in Afghanistan.

[JASmith]

Stan,

Thanks -- Looks like that one is nicely tied down and comfortable to wear.

Cheers!

[stanc]

Thanks -- Looks like that one is nicely tied down and comfortable to wear.

Joe,

Notice the strong resemblance to the PDW worn in thigh rigs by the white-clad soldiers in the "Moscow Incident" (begins at 0:57 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW57mVNNJM8 ).

Looks like another instance of life imitating art...

(And yes, I sure do like that scene. )

[stanc]

The M4/5.56 is an excellent system and only really needs the original fire-control mechanism (AUTO-not for auto, but for the consistent trigger pull)...

Doesn't the M4A1 have full-auto and consistent trigger pull?

An amusing tidbit for Variable, if he's reading this thread: I just learned that the Army has developed a Flame-Resistant Army Combat Uniform, or FRACU. I wonder if there was a Battlestar Galactica fan with a sense of humor involved, as it looks to me as if the acronym would have to be spoken as "frak you." :eek: