Alternative new rifle cartridges

It is refreshing to see a move away from cleaner, greener killing devices. Much of the previous two decades hss been counterproductive to actual weapon effects. Moving ahead with the M855A1 path certainly is progress.

Any improvement in bullet velocity is going to require an investment in accuracy. I have no problem with the pressures they are exploring. While M855A1+ is currently at over 80,000 psi, they should reconsider the bullet size to balance performance with wear. The gun industry can currently push 90,000 psi but it comes by dropping bullet diameters and a realization performance comes with a price. These high pressures shred barrels faster, but barrels are a wear item meant to be replaced with use. The bolt and mechanicals, however, you cannot afford to break in battle. The price of guns and their bullets will therefore increate. Rate of fire will suffer as pressures climb so accuracy depends on quality of aim. The flat shooting will get more quantity of bullets on target with greater bullet effects when used properly. But without increasing quality of aim, all of this is an exercise in futility.
 
whatismoo said:
Flechettes and buckshot all have dispersion, range, and energy retention issues, and switching mags or carrying a shotgun kind of sucks.

The Russians have experimented with duplex 7.62x54r (though the second bullet looks bizzare). Duplex ammo would seem a promising approach the problem at least in close combat (0-200/300m) if ACR results are anything to go by, though it did blow up a gun, so there's development that needs to be done.
Click to expand...
The us already tried that in the 80's, had the same issues flachet rounds had, heavily degraded accuracy.
 
MadRat said:
Not at 600 meters plus. Your comment clearly demonstrates that you hadn't read the basis for M855A1.
Click to expand...
Why is the basic squad firing at 600m?

You have supporting arms for that. Say, mortars, recoilless rifles, loitering munitions, etc ad nauseam.

If the ROE don't let you use those supporting arms, that is a different issue entirely, and I'd suggest lining up the politicians responsible for the ROE. At the graves of those servicemembers killed because of their rules, to make a nice start.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Why is the basic squad firing at 600m?

You have supporting arms for that. Say, mortars, recoilless rifles, loitering munitions, etc ad nauseam.

If the ROE don't let you use those supporting arms, that is a different issue entirely, and I'd suggest lining up the politicians responsible for the ROE. At the graves of those servicemembers killed because of their rules, to make a nice start.
Click to expand...
Because of Afghanistan. Ranges in the mountains can be much longer than in forests and towns, and there were too many instances of not having the range to fire back when ambushed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Again, that's an issue of ROEs.

A political problem.
Click to expand...
What he said went right past your brain.

They could not place a small arms effect on targets at 600+ meters. This is about neither training nor politics.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Again, that's an issue of ROEs.

A political problem.

Not a technical problem or even a training problem.
Click to expand...
It's more of a TOE issue, how do you want to categorize that is to you.

General disdain for 7.62 equipped DMs does that to squad effectiveness.
 
MadRat said:
What he said went right past your brain.

They could not place a small arms effect on targets at 600+ meters. This is about neither training nor politics.
Click to expand...
I believe the point is that small arms do not need to be effective at 600+ meters because infantry should be relying on indirect fire/large caliber direct fire at those ranges.
 
The army wants the M855A1 for beyond 600 meters. It fell short, hence M855A1+. Your machine guns can indirect fire quite a bit past that. What they lacked was something in between. Now they just need to advance the battle rifle past some of the 1963 technology.
 
I don't know if pushing 5.56mm up to insane chamber pressures is a very good idea. What they've got the 6.8x51mm working at is already pretty extreme.
 
Increasing pressure is just a simple scaling methode for increase muzzle velocity & range without having to redesign the projectile.
I wouldn't say it's a cheap approach nor safe. A more aerodynamic projectile would be the best solution but it would go counter to the desired tumbling effect. Increasing velocity would only stretch out or lesson tumbling a bit.

I prefer a better projectile and we do have better form designs for ages.
There was also a match like design from South Korea sometime in 2004/6 that in theory could be used with a smoothbore, hence, lowering wear etc.
 
There's all sorts of stuff you can do to get higher velocities nowadays. NAS3 cases, or that Peak Alloy case for higher pressure.
Rifling? Progressive polygonal rifling is a thing. As for barrel steel, Carpenter is now producing GNB200, which kicks the usual barrel steel's ass.

If you're not afraid of changing the action, go for something like this (https://gunsamerica.com/digest/us-army-high-velocity-machine-gun/), with a collet-like chamber that makes extraction much easyer:

1779715922238490.png

With stuff like this you can use fast burning pistol powders, and get 3600 FPS+ out of 11.5 inch barrels. Throw a silencer like the SAW Tisha on it, and you're golden.
And your DMR can get away with 14.5 inch barrel instead of a 20 inch barrel..

There's a LOT of stuff happening right now.
 
Last edited:
MadRat said:
What he said went right past your brain.

They could not place a small arms effect on targets at 600+ meters. This is about neither training nor politics.
Click to expand...
And the reason they HAD TO place a small arms effect on targets at 600m was:

the ROEs did not allow engagement with the doctrinal effector (explosives) until the squad in contact could verify that there were no non-hostiles in the area about to be kaboomed.

That's not a "we need a new rifle or new ammunition" problem, that's a political/ROE problem.

Every Stryker in my friend's division in Afghanistan in 2011-12 had an M14 in it for DMR work. They had a pair of SAWs (which admittedly may-or-may-not have the reach) or a pair of M240s if it was Weapons Squad. They had the .50cal on the CROWS. They had Javelin ATGMs (which they weren't allowed to use).

Today, you'd send a Switchblade drone up to whichever sangar the Taliban are hiding in and confirm that every dude in that sangar has a weapon or ammo, then drop the switchblade on their heads. Or if you have a longer-endurance drone that you can recover per vehicle you send that then drop artillery on their heads.

Give each vehicle/squad a freaking observer drone or two and the whole need to put rifle fire on target at 600m goes away.
 
Scott Kenny said:
the ROEs did not allow engagement with the doctrinal effector (explosives) until the squad in contact could verify that there were no non-hostiles in the area about to be kaboomed.
Click to expand...
Not the case at all. It forced them to expend crucial, high dollar ordnance. You must have missed that part.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, it forced them to NOT SHOOT BACK AT ALL because no supporting fires were authorized until AFTER you assaulted the damn position.
Click to expand...
Not true at all. They always had inherent right to self protect. Whether Petreaus or Mattis was in charge, calling in air power had strings attached to protect civilians. Forces in contact have already met PID requirements and could self protect. Unfortunately they tended to use anything they had on hand with little regard to cost. Shooting TOW missiles at a goatherder - shooting hundred year old long rifles at them - was not a practical exchange. But it happened too often.

The point of M855A1 is to give infantry a way to reach the targets with confidence. You can teach a guy to aim sixteen feet over the target much cheaper than replacing TOW missiles.
 
MadRat said:
Not true at all. They always had inherent right to self protect. Whether Petreaus or Mattis was in charge, calling in air power had strings attached to protect civilians. Forces in contact have already met PID requirements and could self protect. Unfortunately they tended to use anything they had on hand with little regard to cost. Shooting TOW missiles at a goatherder - shooting hundred year old long rifles at them - was not a practical exchange. But it happened too often.

The point of M855A1 is to give infantry a way to reach the targets with confidence. You can teach a guy to aim sixteen feet over the target much cheaper than replacing TOW missiles.
Click to expand...
The classic "pinned down by a PKM at 1000 yards that we couldn't hit" story doesn't require anything more than 1 guy with a DMR.

No side is effective at 600m+ with small arms, there is no reason to be carrying huge amounts of extra weight in larger caliber ammunition when the primary role of the rifleman is sustained, accurate suppression to keep the enemy in the location that your 155mm is about to land.

The fact is that small arms just aren't really a factor at those ranges, where small arms come into effect is in short range engagements where you want a lot of ammunition more than you want something that will drop an elk.

Lighter ammunition for the rifleman = more capacity to carry extra ammunition for the section weapon.
 
MadRat said:
Not true at all. They always had inherent right to self protect. Whether Petreaus or Mattis was in charge, calling in air power had strings attached to protect civilians. Forces in contact have already met PID requirements and could self protect. Unfortunately they tended to use anything they had on hand with little regard to cost. Shooting TOW missiles at a goatherder - shooting hundred year old long rifles at them - was not a practical exchange. But it happened too often.

The point of M855A1 is to give infantry a way to reach the targets with confidence. You can teach a guy to aim sixteen feet over the target much cheaper than replacing TOW missiles.
Click to expand...
Air power and artillery and mortars. All supporting arms required PID that everyone in the area of effect was hostile. "To prevent all civilian casualties" they said. Which is factually impossible, but when has reality ever stopped a demand by the idiots writing ROEs.

So it was down to "well, what weapon do we have that will reach that far in the truck?" Not the M14. Not against the 1000+ft elevation gain from valley floor at 800-1000m range.

M2010 sniper rifle in 300 winmag? Better but it wasn't in enough trucks.

So the option is still TOWs or Javelins (later replaced by 90mm recoilless rifles). Or a trebuchet mounted on a spare trailer throwing a demolitions satchel charge up there. "Is" because US forces still don't have squad or truck drones like a Switchblade issued out.

Or, you know, not putting stupid ROEs in the first damn place.
 
SuperShark said:
The classic "pinned down by a PKM at 1000 yards that we couldn't hit" story doesn't require anything more than 1 guy with a DMR.

No side is effective at 600m+ with small arms, there is no reason to be carrying huge amounts of extra weight in larger caliber ammunition when the primary role of the rifleman is sustained, accurate suppression to keep the enemy in the location that your 155mm is about to land.

The fact is that small arms just aren't really a factor at those ranges, where small arms come into effect is in short range engagements where you want a lot of ammunition more than you want something that will drop an elk.

Lighter ammunition for the rifleman = more capacity to carry extra ammunition for the section weapon.
Click to expand...
this type of thinking denies the demand for Fire Fight Dominance which the Army has contemplated for many years now. Trng will be as important as Fire Control automation. Armies not ready for long range cmbt better stay home. Standoff is survival.
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
this type of thinking denies the demand for Fire Fight Dominance which the Army has contemplated for many years now. Trng will be as important Fire Control automation. Armies not ready for long range cmbt better stay home. Standoff is survival.
Click to expand...
The Army has contemplated a great many things over the years, consistently leading to full-caliber rifle that is quickly replaced.
Standoff is indeed survival, as is not being engaged in a firefight, as is being lightweight and agile.
You utilize your standoff to direct artillery which is the thing that actually quiets the enemy force - again, small arms are pretty well insignificant in the grand scheme of things past ~200m, I know it kills the fun of speculation but the M4 does just fine in all regards.
 
SuperShark said:
The Army has contemplated a great many things over the years, consistently leading to full-caliber rifle that is quickly replaced.
Standoff is indeed survival, as is not being engaged in a firefight, as is being lightweight and agile.
You utilize your standoff to direct artillery which is the thing that actually quiets the enemy force - again, small arms are pretty well insignificant in the grand scheme of things past ~200m, I know it kills the fun of speculation but the M4 does just fine in all regards.
Click to expand...
the Army demands a particular level of body armor penetration at a particular long range. This is not w/o reason. Gone r the days knife like gun fights. There not enough troops nor artillery The future is standoff & w/ drones & robots leading. Unfortunately the PLA seems to be first mover on drones & bots.
 
jsport said:
The future is standoff & w/ drones & robots leading. Unfortunately the PLA seems to be first mover on drones & bots.
Click to expand...
China has been competing perhaps indirectly by supplying Russia but their regular army is a mixture of several regional commands all going different directions with technology. I am not so sure they are ready to put the parts together because that would hurt a lot of leadership feelings at the region level. The rifle situation in the PLA has been all over the places, too.

The US Army is working on drone targeting at the squad level. Whatever round they choose should be more than sufficient to curb the current implementation of flying battlefield drones. Can they break robot dogs? Not sure but it would be nice to have a bullet with 12,000+ pounds of impact energy just in case. M855A1 is not that bullet but something like .510 Beck can deliver that amount of force.
 
MadRat said:
China has been competing perhaps indirectly by supplying Russia but their regular army is a mixture of several regional commands all going different directions with technology. I am not so sure they are ready to put the parts together because that would hurt a lot of leadership feelings at the region level. The rifle situation in the PLA has been all over the places, too.

The US Army is working on drone targeting at the squad level. Whatever round they choose should be more than sufficient to curb the current implementation of flying battlefield drones. Can they break robot dogs? Not sure but it would be nice to have a bullet with 12,000+ p?ounds of impact energy just in case. M855A1 is not that bullet but something like .510 Beck can deliver that amount of force.
Click to expand...
One can fit more shot in a 6.8mm rd.

How will .510 recoil be managed?
 
jsport said:
One can fit more shot in a 6.8mm rd.

How will .510 recoil be managed?
Click to expand...
Anti-flying drone will be any rifle with the smart scope attached.

The .510 Beck trades mass for velocity, keeping recoil down to equivalent to 'what feels likea 20 gauge shotgun' as previously described. Big shot mass and low velocity is like how a musket has so much force, only smokeless. The 6.8 mm is up to about 8,000 pounds of force. It may be enough but unlike the Beck it has a big recoil.
 
MadRat said:
Anti-flying drone will be any rifle with the smart scope attached.

The .510 Beck trades mass for velocity, keeping recoil down to equivalent to 'what feels likea 20 gauge shotgun' as previously described. Big shot mass and low velocity is like how a musket has so much force, only smokeless. The 6.8 mm is up to about 8,000 pounds of force. It may be enough but unlike the Beck it has a big recoil.
Click to expand...
Fire control is the future but shot helps as the current front attests...

Ok, my negligence, but the 50.. was alluding to as the future MBR should reach out. Needs radical recoil mitigation.
 
I would not go out of my way to fire a .50 BMG while on my feet and moving. But I definitely would not be too concerned firing the .510 Beck while doing so. For raw hitting power it is a great solution. Probably could add an attachment to a rifle that held ten or more rounds without being overly cumbersome. You would not be carrying hundreds of rounds of course, with it practical only to carry 3-5 reloads at most. Your main rifle would do most of the work.

This is why I felt .177 (4.5 mm) might be considered for the main rifle. For 600 meter shots it can pack a threat of lethality against unarmed foes, but for best practice against armored foes you would want about 300 meters at most. You could increase the number of rounds an additional 15-20% over the current (pre-M855A1) 5.56 mm cartridges. If you went to something more similar to the .204 Ruger then it gives similar close range velocities for improved penetration. The .204 would have more bullet mass for better long range lethality but suffer a trade towards a much more modest boost (5%) in overall rounds. The M855A1+ is a good balanced approach for now and would carry more true in windy environments. It is hard to get past the reality that both .177 and .204 would be poor long-range choices in any high wind environment compared to the M855A1+.
 
MadRat said:
This is why I felt .177 (4.5 mm) might be considered for the main rifle. For 600 meter shots it can pack a threat of lethality against unarmed foes, but for best practice against armored foes you would want about 300 meters at most. You could increase the number of rounds an additional 15-20% over the current (pre-M855A1) 5.56 mm cartridges. If you went to something more similar to the .204 Ruger then it gives similar close range velocities for improved penetration. The .204 would have more bullet mass for better long range lethality but suffer a trade towards a much more modest boost (5%) in overall rounds. The M855A1+ is a good balanced approach for now and would carry more true in windy environments. It is hard to get past the reality that both .177 and .204 would be poor long-range choices in any high wind environment compared to the M855A1+.
Click to expand...
You're still talking about a round the size of a 5.56 case for your .177/4.5mm. So you're not fitting more rounds per magazine or more mags per pouch. Just more ammo per kg.

Barrel life is going to suck at those bore diameter to case volume ratios, too.

Also, I'm not totally sold on effect on target of a hypervelocity air rifle pellet. I mean, yes, big hole at the surface but not necessarily much penetration at all.
 
If we are going to speculate, the cartridge of the future would be something like the 5.56 FABRL that stays supersonic longer, extending the range at which you can transmit the suppressing crack to the shivering conscript/PKM magician you are trying to suppress.

You can increase the chamber pressure of 5.56x45 until the cows come home but there are serious trade-offs in barrel life, recoil, material fatigue etc. etc.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Also, I'm not totally sold on effect on target of a hypervelocity air rifle pellet. I mean, yes, big hole at the surface but not necessarily much penetration at all.
Click to expand...
The 17WSM would be the lowest end I would find acceptible and that is nothing like an air rifle pellet on impact. And there are significantly better .177 cartridges than 17WSM. I would want to get closer to 4500 fps but that may mean a thicker shell. The .204 Ruger has about 33% more mass but can push 4200 fps. These are not your daddy's air rifle pellet.

Scott Kenny said:
You're still talking about a round the size of a 5.56 case for your .177/4.5mm. So you're not fitting more rounds per magazine or more mags per pouch. Just more ammo per kg.
Click to expand...
They are not all similar in size to 5.56 x 45 mm cartridges. 17WSM is significantly smaller than 17 Fireball and has about 3600 fps at 20 grain. The 17 Fireball is two-thirds the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge length and has about 4000 fps at 20 grain. The 204 Ruger is much closer to the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge but the accuracy is generally 10% tighter at 4200 fps at 32 grain.
 
MadRat said:
The 17WSM would be the lowest end I would find acceptible and that is nothing like an air rifle pellet on impact. And there are significantly better .177 cartridges than 17WSM. I would want to get closer to 4500 fps but that may mean a thicker shell. The .204 Ruger has about 33% more mass but can push 4200 fps. These are not your daddy's air rifle pellet.


They are not all similar in size to 5.56 x 45 mm cartridges. 17WSM is significantly smaller than 17 Fireball and has about 3600 fps at 20 grain. The 17 Fireball is two-thirds the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge length and has about 4000 fps at 20 grain. The 204 Ruger is much closer to the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge but the accuracy is generally 10% tighter at 4200 fps at 32 grain.
Click to expand...
Do you want good terminal ballistics at 600 yards or do you want 4200 fps at 32 grain?
 
SuperShark said:
If we are going to speculate, the cartridge of the future would be something like the 5.56 FABRL that stays supersonic longer, extending the range at which you can transmit the suppressing crack to the shivering conscript/PKM magician you are trying to suppress.
Click to expand...
Current 5.56 is only supersonic to about 450m, depending on barrel length and temperatures.

Problem is, something like the 7.92x40mm aluminum-cored copper jacketed bullets aren't going to pop any armor, even if they're supersonic to nearly 1000m.

It may arguably be better to use a .30cal bore and sabot rounds like SLAP or Remington Accelerator. 300blk might be interesting as the starting case for this purpose. Load some M855A1s or the super long 80-90gr .224 bullets used in the 224 Valkyrie. Should be able to clear 3800fps or more out of the BLK case, it's got a much higher pressure rating than ye olde 30-30 at 56kpsi versus 46k.

*smack* Bad Scott! you do NOT need another rifle project! :p Or at least finish the ones you have working now first!



SuperShark said:
You can increase the chamber pressure of 5.56x45 until the cows come home but there are serious trade-offs in barrel life, recoil, material fatigue etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Yep. The Army isn't going to want to buy new barrels every 1000 rounds.

Hell, they complain about new barrels every 10k!



MadRat said:
They are not all similar in size to 5.56 x 45 mm cartridges. 17WSM is significantly smaller than 17 Fireball and has about 3600 fps at 20 grain. The 17 Fireball is two-thirds the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge length and has about 4000 fps at 20 grain. The 204 Ruger is much closer to the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge but the accuracy is generally 10% tighter at 4200 fps at 32 grain.
Click to expand...
If you want 4500+fps you need a case about the size of a 5.56. And that case to bore ratio is going to burn up barrels something fierce.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Current 5.56 is only supersonic to about 450m, depending on barrel length and temperatures.

Problem is, something like the 7.92x40mm aluminum-cored copper jacketed bullets aren't going to pop any armor, even if they're supersonic to nearly 1000m.

It may arguably be better to use a .30cal bore and sabot rounds like SLAP or Remington Accelerator. 300blk might be interesting as the starting case for this purpose. Load some M855A1s or the super long 80-90gr .224 bullets used in the 224 Valkyrie. Should be able to clear 3800fps or more out of the BLK case, it's got a much higher pressure rating than ye olde 30-30 at 56kpsi versus 46k.

*smack* Bad Scott! you do NOT need another rifle project! :p Or at least finish the ones you have working now first!




Yep. The Army isn't going to want to buy new barrels every 1000 rounds.

Hell, they complain about new barrels every 10k!




If you want 4500+fps you need a case about the size of a 5.56. And that case to bore ratio is going to burn up barrels something fierce.
Click to expand...
https://cbjtech.com/ammunition/300-blackout-cbj/

I see no reason that couldn't be a tool steel perpetrator instead. Hopefully the Swedish have better luck with 30 cal sabot rounds than the US - the spoon tip slugs seem to have quite gnarly wound channels which helps the issue of through-and-through wounds.

If polymer case technology is reliable we could be off to the races with lightweight ammunition, the overall dimensions of current intermediate rifle cartridges is a non-issue, it's simply weight. Aluminium core .300 blackout exists and may serve as a "ball" round - I'm still not convinced armour penetration is as important as weight.

Sounds like a good, fun and rewarding project to me, Scott...
 
SuperShark said:
Sounds like a good, fun and rewarding project to me, Scott...
Click to expand...
Just too much other stuff on my plate right now.

Got a Mk12SPR clone and a "Maxim-Lee Self-Loading Cavalry Carbine of 1894" in 6.5 Grendel to build first. Joke being with the Maxim-Lee that all the bits and pieces hoplophobes lose their minds about were invented and patented before 1900. Detachable Box Magazine was patented in 1877 by one James Paris Lee, and gas operation was patented in 1894 by one Hiram Maxim.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom