Alternative new rifle cartridges

[whatismoo]

The US military has been designing around the idea of a company arms room having a wide variety of options since about 2015. Particularly the Marine Corps. Patrolling in cities? Take the M27/M38s. Open country? Bring the SAWs. 7.62 or now 6.8 DMRs in every squad, but you could take an M38 for lighter weight at the cost of a bit less range.

The arms room concept is fundamentally incompatible with large scale warfare. It's foolishness from COIN that turns things into logistical hell. I could see having a few extra small arms floating around like we did in WWII with extra automatic weapons but even then that was situational and only possible because we had so much industrial production.

To quote someone. "Prove it".

Again, "prove it" missiles, more shells are more expensive. The whole point of even researching these guns was the then revealed gun shortfalls during ww2. Precision gets one just so far. Not even an argument.

This is getting tired already. If one doesn't have air sup.. then one never gets close enough. Have stated before numerous times concerning Plaaf hardened structures.

Afghanistan proved range is a tyrant over the infantry. The dreaded urban canyon where most of the world's population live is also a range tyrant.

The current & future transparent battlefield will provide targets, but yes range time is a disaster. Any infantry training not focused on PT, combat drills, & marksmanship is wasted. Cliche, "move, shoot, communications transparent ie effortless & automated".

The Ukrs know drones r gonna need to one finger operated ie nearly effortlessly operated or someone else needs to operate. At least one Swedish company is working the effort less infantry drone. Nearly automating drone defense down to the Dismount is also Israeli development goal& is part of long range engagement.

All combat drills so...

General Scales WGrp recommended infantry needs to 30+ & have plenty previous svc. Soldiers need that experience to juggle all these demands. Those folks are usually married & not retained as better pay is elsewhere. Never ending problem. Infantry is not a young person's thrill seek anymore if effectiveness is sought.


Again if want effectiveness the rifle needs the options the title of rifle entails. If your conventional infantry isn't ready, do what most Western Armies do, use SOF instead. Forget about the conventional infantry doing much of anything but patrol after the fact.

LOL

The L2A & M7/8 are likewise AR platforms so what r we even talking about?

Yes, quite aware.

These statements r old tro ps and why all these variations from the original 5.56mm even exist. 5.56 has been a near failure from the beginning thus giving rise to the original cottage, now Mega industry which cakes lipstick on that pig so deep it is no longer even a pig. Thank you for a pretty good synopsis of all that lipstick.

If you talk to SIG Saur, they are not even interested in human targets, more BTRs etc. Maybe they are correct, anti-vehicle+anti-material.

LOL the US Army has selected, no interest or time to geek out on nostalgia.

Thinkin...ur not my boss. U & other kids can live in past all you want. A waste. The 5 56mm problem is.long since been solved...

1. No post WWII battleship was planned (to my knowledge) with greater than 16" guns. The USN 18" gun program lasted from ~1917 through 1957, but it was determined during the 20s and 30s that it demonstrated no meaningful improvement in armor penetration beyond 16" guns and the rate of fire decrease (in no small part due to the shift from 2200lbs to 3800lbs projectiles) made the concept a net negative. It was considered but rejected for the Iowa class. This topic has been discussed several times on this forum. Pretty much everyone's >16" program ended before WWII, other than the IJN whose development program and they were cancelled after Midway.
2. The sum total development of the USN 18" gun post-WWII was to test ballistics of aircraft bombs. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Who-We-Are/History/Blogs/18-Inch-Gun/
3. It's not clear to me what point you're trying to make with this comment.
4. Afghanistan is not a useful metric for the common terrain for future conflict. Iraq and Ukraine, as well as smaller case studies like the Battle of Marawi, are much more indicative and all point to infantry range being a non-issue.
5. You're missing my point completely. I'm not touching the training thing in detail but you're arguing that everything from counter-intelligence and operational security to tactical combat casualty care is is wasted. This is foolishness.
6. If I am following your innovative grammar and spelling correctly then I would half agree with this, excepting that automating drone defense is going to be nearly impossible because Drones are miserably difficult to spot.
7. These are not combat drills by any definition I've ever heard. If this is the case, then essentially everything that infantry do are combat drills.
8. Could you clarify what you mean here? Either way, infantry training issues are due to rapid attrition of infantry personnel due to high battlefield lethality. You need to replace at a rate which precludes more than a couple months of training at most.
9. SOF are an even worse value proposition due to the absurd expense of training and equipping them vs line infantry. They die to FPVs or artillery the same as normal infantry, they're still human after all.
10. No comment.
11. L2A1 and M7/M8 are kind-of AR platforms but are "large frame" (i.e. 7.62x51mm sized) rifles. M7/M8 are not really ARs, either.
12. No comment
13. This comment says nothing of value, nor does it address any of the points I made. If you want to disagree with the findings of the Hitchman Report, Hall Report, ACR Trials, etc, then please do so by engaging with the findings and explaining yourself.
14. Sig USA isn't Sig Sauer, but either way using infantry rifles against BTRs is generally stupid. That's what the light AT weapons are for. This also doesn't align with Army requirements.
15. It's not nostalgia, it's a sober and measured analysis of the requirements of the modern and future battlefield.
16. If you're not willing to make the effort to discuss the topic with any sort of substance I don't see any use to continued response. I'm not your boss, no, but bloviating and getting rude isn't very much in the spirit of this forum.

 

[jsport]

I just realized my post from the NGSW thread wasn't moved over here, so let me copy it over and make my point about 5.56.

TL;DR: 5.56x45mm is a nearly perfect balance of low logistical and soldier load footprint, high lethality, accuracy, and low recoil.

It also has a significant amount of growth opportunity to improve on these strengths by implementing existing concepts like lightweight high pressure cases (such as the NAS3 steel case or True Velocity polymer case) which would drop weight by ~1/3 (from 12 grams per cartridge to 8 grams) while readily allowing muzzle velocities in excess of 3250 ft/s from 14.5"-16" barrels, and neckless case geometries to allow a more aerodynamic bullet without needing to modify the rifle. Of course, bringing all this together would take time, money and testing, but you're looking at gluing a bunch of TRL-6 to 9 concepts together.

---

There's absolutely no way that rifle fire is killing more people in Ukraine than explosives (be it hand grenades, artillery, kamikaze drones, mines, bombs, missiles, rockets, ATGW, etc).

Small arms (including the MG) still kill, but the trend has been incredibly stable that in conventional wars they produce ~10-30% of casualties, with the majority of lethality and casualty production coming from explosive weapons (artillery, aircraft, grenades, mines). The exact balances change over time, but if you're looking at the numbers then improving infantry lethality is going to come from enabling fires, fixing the explosive shortage, and improving the ability of small units to throw HE-FRAG at the enemy (commando mortars, FPVs, kamikaze drones, a gustav that doesn't give you brain damage, using one of those tennis ball throwers for dogs to chuck hand grenades), NOT from adopting a battle rifle.

Spending >400,000,000 a year on NGSW is (IMO) pretty symptomatic of how much the Army has lost the path on infantry, in part due to the over-emphasis on light infantry and airborne. The baffling part is that 6.8x51 ammunition is nearly twice as heavy as 5.56, at ~22g vs ~12g, so even if the gun weight is held steady the infantry basic load of 210 5.56 rounds (2.5kg) either goes up to 4.6kg for 210 rounds of 6.8 or stays at 2.5kg but only gets you ~114 rounds of 6.8.

Breaking the ammunition weight out a little further, you've got:
View attachment 811201
Apologies for the inconsistent numbers, I put 21.7 into the spreadsheet instead of 22g. Generously there's a version of the squad comparison where 6.8 saves weight vs 5.56, but it saves 3.4kg per squad in exchange for carrying 2000 fewer rounds of ammunition, equivalent to both 5.56 SAW gunners! And that 3.4kg is only equivalent to 286rds 5.56/158rds 6.8!

The ammunition weight issue is unsolvable for 6.8x51, and IMO is the most lethal problem, to the program and to the infantry that have to carry it. It's a recipe to lose the volume of fire fight and have sustainment issues in the field.

Of course there's also the looming alternative that SOCOM is moving towards: high pressure 5.56x45. There's been some scuttlebutt of pushing 62 grain projectiles (i.e. M855/A1) at ~3180 ft/s (970m/s) out of an 11" barrel. That's scratching M193 20" muzzle velocities, probably faster out of a 14.5" barrel (i.e. standard infantry rifle). Flatter shooting, longer effective range, plenty of lethality, backwards compatible, no weight increase, and relatively inexpensive. NAS3 cases even are a ~4g per casing weight SAVINGS, which is 840-1320g per rifleman and 2400-4000g per SAW gunner just from a better case design.

So of course, in true Army fashion, they're spending a lot of money on fundamentally flawed rifles instead of doing the less expensive and better performing route. Just like cancelling JLTV for what is essentially the bastard child of a CUCV and the fabric roof HMMWV, because it's a great idea to get rid of shrapnel protection when battlefields are coming to be dominated by artillery and ATGW (including FPV/Kamikaze drones).

I am constantly baffled how they managed to avoid significant scrutiny, and I really wish that the Army would be hauled in front of congress and asked to answer how they made this math work.

---

IMO the cost argument falls apart when you have to buy new receivers. NAS3 cases have more internal volume so it's possible a longer bullet could fit to get better ballistics in a 62 grain projectile. Personally I think that the steel case should be a fairly large warning that it'll blow up guns. There's also the prospect of mixing NAS3 with the neckless geometries of 5.56 that TV and some people online have played with to get the longer bullet in the same OAL. I've heard some scuttlebutt that steel has odd neck tension issues that might preclude this, but the general point is that 5.56x45's formfactor is absolutely not pushed to the limit, and there's room for a rebarrel/bolt upgrade that should make 5.56 shoot absurdly flat and punch through velocity limited plates (which is most ceramics and steel) at reasonable ranges.

A while back I sketched out a concept for 3300 ft/s 62gr with the G7 of 7N6 (.168) which ended up being comically flat shooting (a 300-350m battle zero ends up mathing out to fairly point and shoot to 500m.

View attachment 811207 View attachment 811206

---

Continually jazzing up 5.56 till they r maxed out, sounds like a never-ending SOCOM boutique endeavor. Their niche particular mission needs can justify sure. Jaz zing up can also be done to 6.5 or 6.8.

Ammo storage remains an issue as initially agreed upon, but conventional infantry is gonna have to avoid intense situations utilizing large expenditure. That is why we have other supporting battlefield operation systems (BOS). Let direct fire GLs, drones, mortars, arty & CAS do the work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The arms room concept is fundamentally incompatible with large scale warfare. It's foolishness from COIN that turns things into logistical hell. I could see having a few extra small arms floating around like we did in WWII with extra automatic weapons but even then that was situational and only possible because we had so much industrial production.

For mechanized or motorized infantry, there's already the old Firing Port Weapons, plus the ATGM and maybe AAGM** that are already natively stuffed into the vehicles. For example, every Stryker used to have an M14 racked in it, for those times they needed more reach. I suspect those have been replaced with an M110 or similar.

All I'm doing is adding 1-2 uppers or full belt-feds to the stowed weapons already in the vehicle, and keeping a couple of boxes of belted 5.56 in addition to the boxes of stripper clip 5.56.



** Note that the infantry ATGM should really be fast enough to deal with helicopters and most CAS birds, and the CLU should support AA use of an ATGM. Call it M2.5-3.

 

[whatismoo]

.338s r worth the weight delivering .50 cal like effects for dismounts. Dismount wpn wanted by socom is where the whole thing began on the military.
Weight reduction for any rifle or MG is an equation of government willingness to burn down risk on. Lightweight will happen as the government pays for it. If they want to pay for it. The material science is there.

Don't even want anyone going there, but (I) is mountainous. Bandits will always find mountains anywhere in world..so silly to even bring up.

All this new Fire Control tech will continue to stretch the standoff which troops will increasingly be asked to engage at. Better to have a rifle ready.

Ok I'm going to keep replying to pass the time.

.338 delivers ".50 like effects" in the same way that Violet Club was a "megaton class" warhead. 6500 joules (.338 Norma) is nowhere near the same as 18,000-20,000 joules (12.7x99mm).
I have to assume (I) is Italy? Which is indeed mountainous, but I don't think that there's going to be a major war there soon.

Fire control tech needs to work reliably and not involve turning on a laser rangefinder before it becomes truly useful. There's also the unanswered question of why you need the infantry rifle to engage to extended range when you could have a squad DMR or automatic weapon which can push out to extended ranges. The 3200 ft/s 62 grain 5.56mm concept I've discussed previously in this thread is supersonic to ~860m, and that transonic threshold is where you tend to see bullets destabilize. It also has about 42% more energy vs standard M855 at 700 yards, at ~334 ft-lbs vs 242. https://shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=904720b3

 

[whatismoo]

For mechanized or motorized infantry, there's already the old Firing Port Weapons, plus the ATGM and maybe AAGM** that are already natively stuffed into the vehicles. For example, every Stryker used to have an M14 racked in it, for those times they needed more reach. I suspect those have been replaced with an M110 or similar.

All I'm doing is adding 1-2 uppers or full belt-feds to the stowed weapons already in the vehicle, and keeping a couple of boxes of belted 5.56 in addition to the boxes of stripper clip 5.56.



** Note that the infantry ATGM should really be fast enough to deal with helicopters and most CAS birds, and the CLU should support AA use of an ATGM. Call it M2.5-3.

The FPW were removed in the 90s. The new LWCLU for Javelin does fit Stinger and presumably NGSRI, so that's neat! I suspect that they're not going to be issuing M14s to strykers now that they're supposed to give everyone an NGSW, but insofar as that was around it was probably an M110 these days yeah. On the other hand, the Stryker has a CROWS and you have a Javelin! And maybe a Gustav, even if it gives you brain damage when you shoot it.

Honestly, I thought you were advocating for keeping all kinds of random guns around, not just some belt feds. I'm a big fan of the all-5.56 squad. If you need 7.62mm push down MMGs from the company weapons platoon.

Frankly, I think that the Army's pre-NGSW squad layout with a SAW in each fireteam was good, it just needed a better LMG than the M249. There's a lot of room for making a much better SAW than the M249, especially if you scaled down M250 or used one of the other new LMGs kicking around (LAMG, etc) so it doesn't weigh as much as a PKM.

 

[jsport]

Ok I'm going to keep replying to pass the time.

.338 delivers ".50 like effects" in the same way that Violet Club was a "megaton class" warhead. 6500 joules (.338 Norma) is nowhere near the same as 18,000-20,000 joules (12.7x99mm).
I have to assume (I) is Italy? Which is indeed mountainous, but I don't think that there's going to be a major war there soon.

A.338 Remington Ultra Magum (RUM) allegedly delivers up to 7k joules. ..three smaller bullets "god like" automation based accuracy, 21k joules delivered.

 

[1635yankee]

Ok I'm going to keep replying to pass the time.

.338 delivers ".50 like effects" in the same way that Violet Club was a "megaton class" warhead. 6500 joules (.338 Norma) is nowhere near the same as 18,000-20,000 joules (12.7x99mm).
I have to assume (I) is Italy? Which is indeed mountainous, but I don't think that there's going to be a major war there soon.

Fire control tech needs to work reliably and not involve turning on a laser rangefinder before it becomes truly useful. There's also the unanswered question of why you need the infantry rifle to engage to extended range when you could have a squad DMR or automatic weapon which can push out to extended ranges. The 3200 ft/s 62 grain 5.56mm concept I've discussed previously in this thread is supersonic to ~860m, and that transonic threshold is where you tend to see bullets destabilize. It also has about 42% more energy vs standard M855 at 700 yards, at ~334 ft-lbs vs 242. https://shooterscalculator.com/ballistic-trajectory-chart.php?t=904720b3

If "I" is Italy (this would be the most used option; there are several other countries that start with "I": Ireland, Israel, Iraq, Indonesia, Iran, India, and Iceland), Italy's geography and climate differs greatly between Catania and Sondrio, leaving aside Sicily and Sardinia. Israel is pretty small, but even there the terrain isn't just one thing. Not having been a military person, this opinion is probably worthless or at least banal, but I suspect that picking an infantry weapon based on combat in one particular, possibly abnormal, case, which is far from a peer opponent, is not the best option.

 

[jsport]

View: https://youtu.be/V4Y_QQic2nw

 

[357Mag]

It's not even a well founded opinion lmao. But god forbid you argue there's a happy medium of a cartridge that does all things well enough.

And that's before everyone forgets that you can push 5.56 to 80-90k PSI and lower the weight by 1/3 with new case designs.

What is moo -

Howdy !

Given the known challenges of keeping MIL small calibre weapons operational ( barrel erosion, example ), one may wonder about potentially accelerated barrel erosion rates on new weapons designed to operate with chamber pressures much higher than what has been historically used.

Renowned ballistician Homer Powely told us about rifle barrel internal ballistics:
“ High pressure is high temperature, and therefore; fast erosion.
It is as simple as that “.


With regards,
357Mag

 

[whatismoo]

If "I" is Italy (this would be the most used option; there are several other countries that start with "I": Ireland, Israel, Iraq, Indonesia, Iran, India, and Iceland), Italy's geography and climate differs greatly between Catania and Sondrio, leaving aside Sicily and Sardinia. Israel is pretty small, but even there the terrain isn't just one thing. Not having been a military person, this opinion is probably worthless or at least banal, but I suspect that picking an infantry weapon based on combat in one particular, possibly abnormal, case, which is far from a peer opponent, is not the best option.

Well yes that's been my point the whole time

 

[whatismoo]

What is moo -

Howdy !

Given the known challenges of keeping MIL small calibre weapons operational ( barrel erosion, example ), one may wonder about potentially accelerated barrel erosion rates on new weapons designed to operate with chamber pressures much higher than what has been historically used.

Renowned ballistician Homer Powely told us about rifle barrel internal ballistics:
“ High pressure is high temperature, and therefore; fast erosion.
It is as simple as that “.


With regards,
357Mag

Yeah this is the open question. DD and Sig are working on it, as are others. It's regularly done with tank barrels but they don't have as long a barrel life. But then nobody even autofrettages rifle barrels!

 

[MadRat]

SKS and AK-47 only got better with a little barrel erosion. Of course they came about in the day where they frequently traded owners.

 

[jsport]

AAI would be clever if they prototyped a CTA .50 cal as a type of LWHMG
It would need to deal w the chamber et al heat. It would have to cope w excessive recoil but would place them squarely ahead technically.
This development will require a long lead time so they should commence R&D immediately, not mull it over. Both mounted & dismounted applications would place them as the leader of the future. This creature would initially be assigned at the company level.
.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The FPW were removed in the 90s. The new LWCLU for Javelin does fit Stinger and presumably NGSRI, so that's neat! I suspect that they're not going to be issuing M14s to strykers now that they're supposed to give everyone an NGSW, but insofar as that was around it was probably an M110 these days yeah. On the other hand, the Stryker has a CROWS and you have a Javelin! And maybe a Gustav, even if it gives you brain damage when you shoot it.

Honestly, I thought you were advocating for keeping all kinds of random guns around, not just some belt feds. I'm a big fan of the all-5.56 squad. If you need 7.62mm push down MMGs from the company weapons platoon.

2-3 Belt Feds (one per fire team), a big DMR (6.5creed or 7.62, maybe bigger), the ATGM and/or MANPADS, and a Gustav in each vehicle.

Frankly, I think that the Army's pre-NGSW squad layout with a SAW in each fireteam was good, it just needed a better LMG than the M249. There's a lot of room for making a much better SAW than the M249, especially if you scaled down M250 or used one of the other new LMGs kicking around (LAMG, etc) so it doesn't weigh as much as a PKM.

If we're sticking with 5.56, IMO the best SAW is an Ultimax or Knights LAMG. 7.62, the best SAW is likely the Knights AMG.

I am going to throw out an interesting .30cal option: the French 7.5 Balle D was 190gr at like 2300fps (12.35g at 700m/s). This started slow but didn't lose speed very quickly, so the 140gr load was going slower by ~300m.

 

[Seragina]

You know, almost everybody, me included, likes to talk about round calibers, performance, range and such.
But the more important thing has always been the cartridge case. Its size and volume determine the amount of grain and the projectile that could go in. Having a well thought out and sized case and related chamber could serve for many projectile designs. Caliber size is just a neck adjustment and the barrel attached. And this is one of the reason I'm really not happy with the design of the selected 6.8 mm. The requirement to keep it compatible with an outdated chamber literally crippled its potential. Let alone the pressure requirement and all.
I too was leaning for the 6.5 mm grendel. But its casing was also not to my liking for the same reason.
As projectile design keep progressing with better technology... that all that's needed for improvement. I'm not saying grain technology doesn't play a roll. But we can always adjust the grain amount if a more powerful one is used and or fit a more voluminous projectile instead. From what I see, though, I don't have the numbers. The size range from match round to subsonic heavy round has been large for the same casings. So I see no problem with just changing projectile for specific needs. And this give more emphasis on the case's importance as a key enabler.

If we're sticking with 5.56, IMO the best SAW is an Ultimax or Knights LAMG. 7.62, the best SAW is likely the Knights AMG.

In this case (5.56) think there should be a distinction made for range specific rounds.
A heavy short range subsonic round and a long range round. Heavy by using more dense material with subsonic improving impact and damage aka stopping power. The other ofc a match like round. It's bothersome to have to change ammo type but wouldn't this be one possible solution? Although, it still won't solve all the future requirement we have now.

I am going to throw out an interesting .30cal option: the French 7.5 Balle D was 190gr at like 2300fps (12.35g at 700m/s). This started slow but didn't lose speed very quickly, so the 140gr load was going slower by ~300m.

This would fit my short range idea above for this caliber.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In this case (5.56) think there should be a distinction made for range specific rounds.

A heavy short range subsonic round and a long range round. Heavy by using more dense material with subsonic improving impact and damage aka stopping power. The other ofc a match like round. It's bothersome to have to change ammo type but wouldn't this be one possible solution? Although, it still won't solve all the future requirement we have now.

Subsonic 5.56 is an icepick. Doesn't tumble, doesn't fragment. If you need subsonic rounds in that overall length, you swap to .300blk uppers. Even supersonic 5.56 tends to be an icepick at or below 2200fps.

So the round choice is 62gr M855 or M855A1, or 77gr OTM.

Plus this is ignoring the change in zero caused by different weight bullets.

This would fit my short range idea above for this caliber.

Balle D was actually a long-range round. It had a much better ballistic coefficient than the 140gr bullet, so it drifted much less in the wind and had a shorter time-of-flight at long ranges.

 

[CastleBravo]

Future infantry need maximize standoff while still maximizing effects. Reloadable loitering munition launching uas ugv r useful & best utilized in coordination long range effecting small arms.

Maybe, but again, you can get 1200m+ supersonic performance out of 5.56 case dimensions if you run it at 100ksi like they are doing with NAS3 and you use a longer 75+gr VLD style bullet with a G7 of >0.23 at 3500fps.

I would make a new quad stack ~50rd mag and receiver set for 2.5" COAL, load a new round with NAS3 cases and a low drag bullet like 75gr ELD-M, and call it a day. Make a short and long barrel version. Most soldiers get the shorty, and the long boy serves as both DMR and LMG. Everyone in the squad uses the same mags/ammo, and they can all lay down accurate automatic fire out to ~1km while a few of them can reach out a touch further.

 

[MadRat]

Push a lighter bullet to 1,350 m/s to shoot like lasers out to 400 meters. Give it a sliver of tungsten for a hard point tip to defeat all current body armors. Once you get over 1,000 m/s the impacts are scary. Impacts will create cavities with any lead in the bullet exploding, as its so soft and superheated by air it cannot remain a singular, coherent mass. Just need a pinhole to take maximum advantage of the plenum impact. Any copper sleeve will potentially tumble if it stays together. The most savage aspect of the impact will be a kinetic shockwave that can liquify cell membranes. So if the exploding plenum mass doesn't get you, and the tumbling copper fragments do not get you, the shockwave alone may just do it. And the crazy thing is the bullet may not even leave but a small hole in you without exiting out the other side.

 

[CastleBravo]

At 400m, a 75gr ELD-M fired at 1000m/s is faster than a 50gr V-MAX fired at 1350m/s.

 

[whatismoo]

2-3 Belt Feds (one per fire team), a big DMR (6.5creed or 7.62, maybe bigger), the ATGM and/or MANPADS, and a Gustav in each vehicle.



If we're sticking with 5.56, IMO the best SAW is an Ultimax or Knights LAMG. 7.62, the best SAW is likely the Knights AMG.

I am going to throw out an interesting .30cal option: the French 7.5 Balle D was 190gr at like 2300fps (12.35g at 700m/s). This started slow but didn't lose speed very quickly, so the 140gr load was going slower by ~300m.

The Army was already doing this before NGSW with SAW and M110 but I think it was more rigid than you're suggesting.

IME the best 5.56mm saw option doesn't exist yet but Ultimax is good for off the shelf. LAMG is interesting, for sure. But we'll see.

I really think the logistical issues of a 7.62 replacement, especially in the coalition context, mean it's kind of a non-starter. 7.62x51 is pretty ok as things go. 6.8x51 or 6.5x51 are pretty nice but it's expensive to convert everything over. Also keep in mind that M80A1 is a 130gr at 3000fps out of a 22" (give or take).

 

[jsport]

Maybe, but again, you can get 1200m+ supersonic performance out of 5.56 case dimensions if you run it at 100ksi like they are doing with NAS3 and you use a longer 75+gr VLD style bullet with a G7 of >0.23 at 3500fps.

I would make a new quad stack ~50rd mag and receiver set for 2.5" COAL, load a new round with NAS3 cases and a low drag bullet like 75gr ELD-M, and call it a day. Make a short and long barrel version. Most soldiers get the shorty, and the long boy serves as both DMR and LMG. Everyone in the squad uses the same mags/ammo, and they can all lay down accurate automatic fire out to ~1km while a few of them can reach out a touch further.

Sounds good, would only add that all squad members possess 1. assault 2
LNG & 3. DMR barrels for whatever particular situation arises.The barrels can be carried somewhere accessible, maybe on nearby UGV.

As there may be no near term practical plan for the USMC to securely transfer over to 6.8, they may need to adopt a hot 5.56mm evolution

 

[jsport]

IME the best 5.56mm saw option doesn't exist yet but Ultimax is good for off the shelf. LAMG is interesting, for sure. But we'll see.

5.56 & 7.62 MGs don't need a best option as they should retired as they r obsolete.

Manpads were never part of squads. Atgms r likewise a plt asset not sqd 's.

I really think the logistical issues of a 7.62 replacement, especially in the coalition context, mean it's kind of a non-starter. 7.62x51 is pretty ok as things go. 6.8x51 or 6.5x51 are pretty nice but it's expensive to convert everything over. Also keep in mind that M80A1 is a 130gr at 3000fps out of a 22" (give or take).

Logistics issues r known & commented on by all. It is uncertain if NATO will adopt. FRG & UK don't seem to be leaning that way. Fr even less likely. The US will continue adopting regardless. The real question is how much 7.62 will survive as 6.8. & .338 will eclipse it.

 

[MadRat]

At 400m, a 75gr ELD-M fired at 1000m/s is faster than a 50gr V-MAX fired at 1350m/s.

Doesn't matter when the 50 gr hit the finish line relatively long before the 75 gr.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I really think the logistical issues of a 7.62 replacement, especially in the coalition context, mean it's kind of a non-starter. 7.62x51 is pretty ok as things go. 6.8x51 or 6.5x51 are pretty nice but it's expensive to convert everything over. Also keep in mind that M80A1 is a 130gr at 3000fps out of a 22" (give or take).

Remember that barrels and recoil springs are a wear item and get replaced on a regular basis anyways.

Converting an M240 to 6.8x51 is likely the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring, not the cost of an M250. Converting an M240 to 6.5x51 absolutely is the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring.

Barrel and recoil spring, with all the bits attached, is maybe 500 per barrel. (rifle barrels are 300, plus front sight and gas block)

5.56 & 7.62 MGs don't need a best option as they should retired as they r obsolete.

Manpads were never part of squads. Atgms r likewise a plt asset not sqd 's.

Wow. I don't even know what to say.

You don't think that an individual fireteam should have a belt fed for an option?
I'm adding MANPADS to each squad as an option.
You don't think that an individual squad should have a Javelin gunner?

The real question is how much 7.62 will survive as 6.8. & .338 will eclipse it.

While I do think that the .338 MG will take over the platoon and especially vehicle MG role, I don't think you'll see 338 MGs in the squad. Again, .338 linked ammo weighs twice as much as 7.62 or 6.8.

Doesn't matter when the 50 gr hit the finish line relatively long before the 75 gr.

You might want to check your total time of flight to 500 or 600m

 

[MadRat]

You might want to check your total time of flight to 500 or 600m

The NATO standard for the 5.56 mm was accuracy to 400 meters. Not sure why it matters. The 50 gr had a huge headstart on a 75 gr and the ballistic tables indicate they literally decelerate to an overlapping set of results by the 400 meter mark. 500 meters and 600 meters would not be relevant for either bullet. A designated marksman would not use either bullet.

 

[jsport]

Remember that barrels and recoil springs are a wear item and get replaced on a regular basis anyways.

Converting an M240 to 6.8x51 is likely the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring, not the cost of an M250. Converting an M240 to 6.5x51 absolutely is the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring.

Converting any MGs is not a practical solution. Old MGs can only be phased out as backup inventory & retained in arms rooms w spare ammo as long as that makes sense.

Wow. I don't even know what to say.

You don't think that an individual fireteam should have a belt fed for an option?

As the above video points out & is common knowledge the IAR was to eliminate the SAW. There would be no belt fed at the squad.

Belt fed @ plt level makes the most sense for mobility & endurance. Belt fed is best judicially utilized w a asst gunner & a ammo bearer.

Belt fed requires a whole maneuvering section. Ideally, this section is the offensive tone setter. This section will be hunted for that reason, and therefore will need to defend itself. The larger the caliber the better.

I'm adding MANPADS to each squad as an option.
You don't think that an individual squad should have a Javelin gunner?

Overburdening squads & the cost as well limited pax calls for those @ the plt level. Emphasis on EIBadge attainment would prepare all infantry to operate. Continuous refresh training. The usmc should assure the training refresh for all infantry as well. Maximum ad hoc modularity small teams as mentioned before 15 pax squads w adhoc adjustments.

MANPADS r not the best means of dealing w drones. Offensive AD is displayed on the current front and should be the basis for AD in a transparent battlefield.

While I do think that the .338 MG will take over the platoon and especially vehicle MG role, I don't think you'll see 338 MGs in the squad. Again, .338 linked ammo weighs twice as much as 7.62 or 6.8.

Firepower dominance supports maneuver dominance & serious detering defense therefore the added burden & a whole separate section. A reactive independant MG section effecting the battlefield where & as demanded.

Belt fed always incurs problems/issues which demand attention. Belt fed often troubles tm speed & maneuver. A tm assigned autorifleman which depends on auto accuracy as explained in the video is correct. The USMC claiming most belt fed fills nothing but air. Every. 338 MG burst should instead deliver serious pause. The era of pure suppression should be nearly over replaced by precision direct effects. Likewise, on the transparent battlefield. 338 range is helpful.

 

[jsport]

The NATO standard for the 5.56 mm was accuracy to 400 meters. Not sure why it matters. The 50 gr had a huge headstart on a 75 gr and the ballistic tables indicate they literally decelerate to an overlapping set of results by the 400 meter mark. 500 meters and 600 meters would not be relevant for either bullet. A designated marksman would not use either bullet.

The US Army seeks regular infantry engagement w the M8 out to 600m, not just the DMR.

 

[357Mag]

At 400m, a 75gr ELD-M fired at 1000m/s is faster than a 50gr V-MAX fired at 1350m/s.

Howdy !

Don’t think the Army or USMC are or will be loading either of those Hornady bullets.

Don’t recall when a 50gr was a featured bullet wt for U.S. 5.56 ammo ?


With regards,
357Mag

 

[Scott Kenny]

As the above video points out & is common knowledge the IAR was to eliminate the SAW. There would be no belt fed at the squad.

No. The plan was always to use M27s in the cities as a way to hide the full auto weapon from snipers, and the Corps kept some 10,000 SAWs in service after buying enough IARs to replace all SAWs in inventory.

Because the SAW still does some stuff better than a glorified AR-18.

 

[CastleBravo]

Howdy !

Don’t think the Army or USMC are or will be loading either of those Hornady bullets.

Don’t recall when a 50gr was a featured bullet wt for U.S. 5.56 ammo ?


With regards,
357Mag

No, I don't think they would use those exact bullets, but they could load new projectile with similar profiles and ballistic performance. A 75-90gr OTM would be more likely to enter service than a ballistic tip, but 75gr ELD-M is the best example to compare the possible performance of a long low drag bullet against the 75gr BTHP currently used in the 3500fps NAS3 load to show the advantage that can be gained by making a new magazine pattern that can accept a slightly longer cartridge.

My reply was specifically about MadRat's idea of using a bullet light enough to go 4400fps with the new case technology. 50gr is probably too heavy to reach that speed, so a more realistic bullet with a worse BC would have even less performance compared to what I showed.

 

[jsport]

No. The plan was always to use M27s in the cities as a way to hide the full auto weapon from snipers, and the Corps kept some 10,000 SAWs in service after buying enough IARs to replace all SAWs in inventory.

Because the SAW still does some stuff better than a glorified AR-18.

Retaining SAWs as back up is always recommended as i mentioned.

Hiding belt feds is an operational distraction. FTs r there to maneuver to SUPPORT fires. Fires will always be exposed, especially w .338 auditory report but even 30mm PGS report.

The Army changing maneuver to support fires rather than the other way around is correct. NEVER put a Marine where a bullet can go.

Full auto should always be an option for all squad members. Thus my argument for L2A like options available to all squad members.

..would ask you to watch the above video. A Marine Gen exclaimed the squad members would be reluctant to give mags to the designated AR so the original mag fed AR role concept may or may be in contention. regardless belt fed sections should not encumber FT maneuver. Any one who has been in maneuver w SAW, especially firing blanks know belt fed is a burden to FTs in too many ways.

 

[MadRat]

My reply was specifically about @MadRat's idea of using a bullet light enough to go 4400fps with the new case technology. 50gr is probably too heavy to reach that speed, so a more realistic bullet with a worse BC would have even less performance compared to what I showed.

If .204 Ruger can hit 12-16 inch groups at 600 meters with a 40 grain, I have confidence the 5.56 with a 50 grain will, too.

 

[whatismoo]

Logistics issues r known & commented on by all. It is uncertain if NATO will adopt. FRG & UK don't seem to be leaning that way. Fr even less likely. The US will continue adopting regardless. The real question is how much 7.62 will survive as 6.8. & .338 will eclipse it.

Literally every other US branch than the army and the whole army outside the "close combat 100,000" will still be using 5.66 and 7.62! It's never been a wholesale replacement.

 

[whatismoo]

Remember that barrels and recoil springs are a wear item and get replaced on a regular basis anyways.

Converting an M240 to 6.8x51 is likely the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring, not the cost of an M250. Converting an M240 to 6.5x51 absolutely is the cost of a new barrel+recoil spring.

Barrel and recoil spring, with all the bits attached, is maybe 500 per barrel. (rifle barrels are 300, plus front sight and gas block)


While I do think that the .338 MG will take over the platoon and especially vehicle MG role, I don't think you'll see 338 MGs in the squad. Again, .338 linked ammo weighs twice as much as 7.62 or 6.8.

M240 is a heavy and cumbersome .30 belt fed by modern standards, but M250 is a 249 replacement! Even 249 sucks but you can get great magazine depth with 5.56, while 250 is itself light, but 6.8 kills how much ammo the squad carries, and pretty well cripples your base of fire endurance. 5.56+7.62/6.8 you at least can keep riflemen ammo counts ok and give them a 50 round belt of MG ammo, but the math is pretty awful for an all 7.62/6.8 squad. For weapons squad MGs sure rebarreling is fine.

Your point about .338 is exactly why 5.56 (and 5.45 and 5.8) are so excellent, since you nearly double your ammo vs 7.62.

 

[Scott Kenny]

M240 is a heavy and cumbersome .30 belt fed by modern standards, but M250 is a 249 replacement! Even 249 sucks but you can get great magazine depth with 5.56, while 250 is itself light, but 6.8 kills how much ammo the squad carries, and pretty well cripples your base of fire endurance. 5.56+7.62/6.8 you at least can keep riflemen ammo counts ok and give them a 50 round belt of MG ammo, but the math is pretty awful for an all 7.62/6.8 squad. For weapons squad MGs sure rebarreling is fine.

Absolutely agree that the M240 is a bigger pig than the M60.

Personally, I'd figure out how to put a round counter into the M60"E7" and have it stated in the plan that after 10-15k rounds you strip the old receiver of components and replace it with a new one. Same time you replace the springs and likely barrels.

IMO the Knights AMG or a 7.62 Ultimax are the right choice for a SAW, but are a little too light for platoon sustained-fire MGs. The M60s when new did quite well in that role.

Your point about .338 is exactly why 5.56 (and 5.45 and 5.8) are so excellent, since you nearly double your ammo vs 7.62.

Yep. When my friend was stomping around Afghanistan in 2011-12, most of his troops were ammo muling 600 rounds of 5.56 per man and 6000 rounds of 5.56 in the trucks. He and the other leaders were muling batteries for all their gear.

 

[whatismoo]

Absolutely agree that the M240 is a bigger pig than the M60.

I'm a big M60 fan. The 240 is great for emplaced roles, AIUI, but then so is a Vickers. I'm mostly just frustrated at how much money is being spent on NGSW for so little gain.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm a big M60 fan. The 240 is great for emplaced roles, AIUI, but then so is a Vickers. I'm mostly just frustrated at how much money is being spent on NGSW for so little gain.

Yeah, fully understand that. The M250 is better than the M249, but it has strange design decisions.

 

[jsport]

View: https://youtu.be/b9DeCud0IaM

 

[riggerrob]

Continually jazzing up 5.56 till they r maxed out, sounds like a never-ending SOCOM boutique endeavor. Their niche particular mission needs can justify sure. Jaz zing up can also be done to 6.5 or 6.8.

Ammo storage remains an issue as initially agreed upon, but conventional infantry is gonna have to avoid intense situations utilizing large expenditure. That is why we have other supporting battlefield operation systems (BOS). Let direct fire GLs, drones, mortars, arty & CAS do the work.

Close air support is obsolete. Given the proliferation of MANPADS, HMGs, etc. A-10s, Cessna Caravans, etc. prefer to loiter above 10,000 feet and drop laser-guided bombs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Close air support is obsolete. Given the proliferation of MANPADS, HMGs, etc. A-10s, Cessna Caravans, etc. prefer to loiter above 10,000 feet and drop laser-guided bombs.

I think CAS is (finally) going to end up as an Army responsibility again where it always belonged. Army operated drones and helos providing air support for troops in contact.

With F-35s doing the deeper battlefield air interdiction because F-35s can't loiter for crap.

Though that does lead me to a question about escorting the Combat Search and Rescue operations. This was one of the major missions for the A-10 back in concept phase, it really requires loitering around and basically being a distraction in the air from the poor bastard on the ground. There's currently no aircraft of any type that has the loitering and armament needed.