The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 13, 2018, 12:11 PM   #26
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 729
Don’t be mad.
davidsog is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 12:40 PM   #27
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,119
Basic middle school level physics has nothing to do with emotion.

There’s more than just bullet diameter in play here.

The bullet diameter in question has been around for a very long time.

The article pretty much says that they tried 6.8spc and it was an improvement, but not enough.
If was enough they wouldn’t be looking for something else.
The receiver real estate and weapon weight is the problem, not the bullet diameter. There’s plenty of powerful chamberings out there now.
I believe personally that this will go nowhere like all the other attempts.
rickyrick is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 12:51 PM   #28
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,085
Quote:
I believe personally that this will go nowhere like all the other attempts.
I believe personally you are right, and I would wager on the fact (and I'm not a gambler). The army's order is a tall one. I'm just not seeing it as feasible with current technology. Sure, they may can make something that might not blow up at 90k psi chamber pressure. But I would wager service life would not come close to approaching 10k rounds before major problems show up. Infantry units actually expend a fair amount of ammo. It was nothing to have an M240 run through a thousand plus rounds of ammo in one range during some training events. M16s and M4s a couple hundred.

If you want our boys to train, rifles need to be durable.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946
5whiskey is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 12:55 PM   #29
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 786
Considering this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._NATO_firearms

Is a new caliber round for the US military going to impact the above? Is it a consideration, the number of weapons that use the 5.56? Seems like a big advantage, that all of NATO and quite a few others(including Russia) use a common caliber..
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 02:11 PM   #30
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,897
Quote:
If you want our boys to train, rifles need to be durable.
My guess is that they plan to use the fancy new sight with indoor projected screen trainers instead of live fire to replace much of the live fire training. If you are slinging rounds with 3,400 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, it isn’t just the rifles that will take a beating. That will be brutal on a lot of range equipment if shot in the same volume as 5.56.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 02:33 PM   #31
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Is a new caliber round for the US military going to impact the above? Is it a consideration, the number of weapons that use the 5.56? Seems like a big advantage, that all of NATO and quite a few others(including Russia) use a common caliber..
Advantage yes, a sole drive and how much, open question.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 13, 2018, 02:37 PM   #32
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
I’ll agree, that it says the 6.8spc kinda worked but they are going to have to completely reinvent the military weapon to make it worthwhile.
The goal is a 10X improvement. 6.8 spc was not deemed to do that. The weapon has to change as well.

The 6.8 was not optimal around ELD bullets either.

You can make bullets for it that are.

There is no way a 10X improvement can be had affordably.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 28, 2018, 03:35 PM   #33
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,007
the whole thing is hard to sort out but the take is 6.8 bullet in the new case type

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...e-combat-units
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 28, 2018, 07:09 PM   #34
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,007
And more definitive, it puts the two program pieces together.

https://www.tactical-life.com/lifest...y-6-8mm-round/

One is the new weapon, the other is the 6.8 mm project (not SPC) as well as whatever round the weapons makers make their gun in (the 6.8 fits in any case)

Down the road mfg will improve on the Army developed 6.8, because after all, the Army is not that innovative (mostly)

Its clear there has been a mis use (or confusion) of the term cartridge and the projectile .

The projectile is the NEW 6.8, how it is cased is up to the weapons makers, it has to meet the weight reductions, range and accuracy specifications.

If it can be done in brass and meets the rest, it will be (not likely). Aluminum - titanium, ? Whatever.

The various telescopic type round seem to have the advantage.

And it has to work. Latter tests will determine how it does in combat conditions.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not

Last edited by RC20; December 28, 2018 at 07:19 PM.
RC20 is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 02:31 AM   #35
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 934
Whatever it ends up, a 120 gr 6.8 bullets will be a killer.
ed308 is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 03:27 AM   #36
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 5,904
120 gr....2900fps.....20% less weight than current 5.56 brass case ammo--that is a very interesting goal post. Something tells me this ammo will never see the light of day on the civilian consumer market--nor anything that's likely to be reloadable. I also wonder if the most classified part of this cartridge is the per shot cost.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 03:42 AM   #37
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
There’s always going to be a trade off. The military has been searching for a Wunderbullit for decades. Not gonna happen. Low recoil, barrier penetration, maximum soft tissue damage. Pick two. If you find a way to make that statement untrue then I hear the guys at NASA could also use a hand bending space-time.

I think the 5.56/7.62 system we have today is about as close to ideal as you can get for squad-organic weapons. I think something 7.62 needs to become somewhat of a secondary standard issue. Think replacing the M4 with both the SCAR-L and SCAR-H. A four man fire team should have two 5.56s and two 7.62s and one of the four should be belt fed.

A squad should look like this:

Squad leader- SCAR-L w/ACOG

Fire Team Leader (FTL)- SCAR-L w/ACOG & 40mm
Ready- SCAR-L w/1x optic
Fire- M240
Assist- SCAR-H w/ACOG

FTL- SCAR-H w/ACOG & 40mm
Ready- SCAR-L w/1x optic
Fire- M249/IAR
Assist-SCAR-H w/ACOG

[insert third fire team here]

Not that I have some love affair for the SCAR, I simply chose it because it is a modern rifle that already has both a 5.56 and 7.62 variant available which would make sense in terms of training and maintenance. The ACR/BREN/etc could work equally as well in 7.62 variants.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250
Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!!
If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging.
OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe

Last edited by Tucker 1371; December 29, 2018 at 04:09 AM.
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 04:37 AM   #38
Tucker 1371
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: East TN
Posts: 2,649
That or a 6.5mm round with a mix of ammunition types. Barrier blind or AP rounds typically aren’t going to have great terminal effect on soft targets. So a 90-120gr conventionally constructed bullet and a 90-120gr hardened alloy core bullet and an in-theater SOP of loading an alternating 50/50 mix of each in every magazine/belt may work for a one-caliber solution. But one caliber and one loading? No way.
__________________
Sgt. of Marines, 5th Award Expert Rifle, 237/250
Expert Pistol, 382/400. D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!!
If you start a thread, be active in it. Don't leave us hanging.
OEF 2011 Sangin, Afg. Molon Labe
Tucker 1371 is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 08:03 AM   #39
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 5,904
Reading the requirements--it is interesting to see the weight restrictions--plus the freehand shooting accuracy requirement doesn't seem all that demanding--though I don't walk around Rambo'ing my AR10 builds all that often--they come in about the same in terms of weight. The picture of the polymer cased .277 looks a bit like a Creedmoor dimensioned case. Coming up with a great cartridge is one thing--coming up with a great gun is another thing--and getting them to both work together reliably and consistently is a whole other ball of wax.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!

Last edited by stagpanther; December 29, 2018 at 08:12 AM.
stagpanther is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 04:08 PM   #40
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 934
Something tells me this ammo will never see the light of day on the civilian consumer market--nor anything that's likely to be reloadable.

Depending on the final design of the cartridge and if it can be easily converted to a brass case, I could see it becoming a success in the consumer market. That's not likely unless the cartridge is actually fielded by the military. But the slight increase in weight of a brass case won't be a problem in the civilian market. With that said, would I want one? Probably not. I've got a 6.5 CM and .224 Valkyrie for bench rifles. And for hunting, I prefer my lightweight 6.8 SPC.
ed308 is offline  
Old December 29, 2018, 04:54 PM   #41
RC20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
There’s always going to be a trade off. The military has been searching for a Wunderbullit for decades. Not gonna happen. Low recoil, barrier penetration, maximum soft tissue damage. Pick two. If you find a way to make that statement untrue then I hear the guys at NASA could also use a hand bending space-time.
I think the range and the barrier penetration are the tech goals, the soft tissue is just lip service. As you note, you can't get all out of the tech (at least now)

I think they are serious, I am not sure they will realize the objective.

In the meantime, the marines are moving on with the Mk 27 and a 60 round magpul drum for it.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not
RC20 is offline  
Old December 30, 2018, 07:39 AM   #42
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,897
The new 6.8 round has been designated XM1186. I’m not sure what the 6.5 version was designated.

Based on other reporting, both bullets are based on the “Enhanced Performance Round” (EPR) that is used in M855A1 and M80A1.

In some articles, Gen. Milley has discussed defeating body armor out to 600m as a requirement. In others, Gen. Milley has discussed defeating “any currently known body armor” without specifying a range. If the intention is to defeat any currently known body armor at 600m, then, in my view, the 2,800fps in RC20’s link ain’t gonna get ‘er done with a 120-130gr EPR style bullet. You’d need tungsten or a different construction that isn’t practical for general purpose construction.

As far as soft-tissue performance, any round that can penetrate any known body armor at 600m will have zero problem with soft tissue performance because it will be packing a lot of energy (around 3,400 ft/lbs I’d guess). So it looks like the low-recoil leg of the triangle is either out the window or subject to some impressive advances in technical knowledge,

All of this in a weapon less than 15lbs and 35” long with optic and suppresssor according to RC20’s link. Also a 60rpm sustained rate of fire and a less than 10% accuracy loss after 10,000 rounds based on the NGSAR requirements.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 07:24 AM   #43
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 729
You guys get it figured out, yet?
davidsog is offline  
Old December 31, 2018, 08:34 AM   #44
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 5,904
Quote:
You guys get it figured out, yet?
We already developed our own system, no need to wait on the cumbersome bureaucracy chasing the holy grail.

I heard from an industry guy that some kind of hush-hush high-velocity self-propelled ammo has already been developed and tested that renders the present cartridge concept obsolete.

Frickin sharks with lasers.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07755 seconds with 8 queries