|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 20, 2017, 11:04 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,486
|
I have a little different recollection on the current crop of US small arms.
We did indeed agree with NATO that our next pistol would be a 9mm, as we insisted on the 7.62, being willing to take no less powerful rifle than .30-06. Trials were held in and after 1949, giving us the Colt Commander and S&W M39. The High Standard and Inglis Lightweight did not carry through to commercial manufacture. But the US military had enough .45s for the time being. Fast forward to about 1980. The many .38 revolvers bought as secondary standard and still in wide use by the USAF were wearing out. A gunzine article of the time said that 40% of those sent for repair were rejected as irreparable. The USAF held their own trials and picked the Beretta. This left the Army playing catchup and everything had to be done over. A cynic might think the result was foreordained. |
August 21, 2017, 10:05 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 22, 2017, 06:12 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Ive seen a number of people pushed against a wall so hard that they were addled for decades.
__________________
None. |
August 25, 2017, 06:39 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
|
To get back to them point, so you folks think that conventinal, cased ammo will be around in them Armes Forces for at least them next decade? (I don't care if the cases are brass or poly, as long as the basic design is maintained...)
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski . ISSC PAR .223 |
August 25, 2017, 07:58 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 3,133
|
Kinda goes back to the 9mm -vs- 40S&W thing.
...at some point when the technology catches up and these rounds provide 2x the power at 25% less weight AND volume, them rounds are gonna take off.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying |
August 25, 2017, 08:37 AM | #31 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
The biggest drawback and showstopping problem with caesless/polymer cased ammo has always been heat: the brass cases act as a heat sink and remove that heat from the chamber. IIRC, the Germans (Federal Republican flavor at the time) developed a gun that used caseless ammo back in the 70's/ early 80's .... the chamber would get hot and cook-off's and runaways resulted..... they redid the propellant to be harder to ignite and then it just melted, really gumming things up..... |
|
August 25, 2017, 08:40 AM | #32 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
|
August 25, 2017, 09:24 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Jim Bob, the 6mm that they were looking at was much heavier than the current 5.56. Weighs. The other considerations you say are valid. Now seriously, in a prolonged firefight, that sounds kind of bothersome. We still are left with a whole lot of drawbacks that I perceive to the program.
The only compelling reason that I can find is that a 6mms round will be far better at killing, which is important. I believe that we can redesign the 5.56with improved case capacity, New powder, careful bullet design,and mods to bolt, chamber, and magazine. I don't think that we can efficiently create this new design. Do we still use the phrase pork barrel? Throwing money at a project with a small likelihood of actual adoption still employs people. Sending in progress reports is good enough. A concern that I have is reliability and durability. It was said earlier that the 1911 pistols literally rattled after years of use. Will these things make a thousand, ten thousand rounds between rebuilds?
__________________
None. |
August 25, 2017, 10:28 PM | #34 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
August 26, 2017, 10:01 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
|
The cartridges being consider are not small like the 5.56 Nato. Most will require a AR10 or similar designed rifle. Several are smaller but still require a magwell that allows a OAL of greater than three inches. All will have greater range and be more lethal than the 5.56 Nato round.
|
August 26, 2017, 11:34 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Jim, I looked up the ones being developed. It seems that they are working on a 5.56 and a ballistically superior six
The 5.56,imo, has nowhere for significant improvement. Largest possible weight and velocity as well as range, terminal damage, B.C.,carrying weight, age damage, durability,simplicity, just about every advantage that I can think of. Brass cased ammunition in small arms is the best that we can do, imo. No advantage can be gained on the 5.56 round. Changing to a cased 6mm round would bring several advantages to the battlefield, but mostly for long range engagement. Far greater effective range. Better terminal effect on some equipment, but not necessarily so on humans. I don't necessarily see advantages in short range combat,100 yards or so. Some changes won't matter. Other changes will possibly be for the worse. Caseless still remains, imo, a truly dumb idea for small arms. cased ammunition works, and is about as good as it can be. The hk rounds fed square pellets and bullets from two separate magazines, right? Double the possibility of malfunction? I'm trying very hard to see this in as many ways as possible. Over and over, all I can see is that the current system is about as good as we can make it. We have tweaked the 5.56for decades and the case for just as long. The metal maybe can be improved, but the idea is sound. I keep addressing to myself the logistics and procurement of such a change. This isn't about a piece of equipment like an mri machine that can be replaced simply over years, this is more like a mandatory demand to replace every blood pressure device in use within a year. But there is one good thing. NATO ammo will not go up in price, I think.
__________________
None. |
August 27, 2017, 02:09 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
|
Since this current "telescoped ammo" hype seems to be born out of the Marines' wish to reduce weight per round, wouldn't it be easier to simply develop a polymer case for existing 5,56 ammo?
(Besides I wonder why weight seems to be such an issue in the first place, in a highly mechanized battlefield that does not strike me as a main concern...)
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski . ISSC PAR .223 Last edited by simonrichter; August 27, 2017 at 02:53 AM. |
August 27, 2017, 03:21 PM | #38 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
August 27, 2017, 04:26 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,486
|
Troops carrying over half their body weight makes weapon and ammo weight a major concern.
|
August 27, 2017, 07:41 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
|
Less weight = carry more ammo.
|
August 27, 2017, 09:52 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
I have read that men on patrol can haul up to ninety pounds of pack. Every ounce matters.
Medical supplies, water, some things you can't leave behind. You can use titanium and plastics when you can. If we can save a couple grams per round of ammo, it is crucial to some of those missions.
__________________
None. |
August 29, 2017, 03:29 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 757
|
OK, thats a point indeed. I was under the impression that even in Afghanistan, most of the work is done with armoured patrol vehicles...
__________________
"Get off of my lawn!" Walt Kowalski . ISSC PAR .223 |
August 29, 2017, 07:28 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Nothing is absolute. The soldiers are driven to assignments and carry packs and belts wherever they go, depends on what they might need. There are men who work deep patrols who might spend several days in the fields. Simply put, people don't march everywhere like they did a century ago but the work itself is still on foot.
__________________
None. |
August 29, 2017, 09:18 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
|
Quote:
|
|
August 29, 2017, 09:30 AM | #45 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 22, 2017
Posts: 1,011
|
Quote:
The longer, more comprehensive answer is that the military has been investigating potential replacement(s) for the 5.56 round since the time I was in graduate school. If the service is going to do something as radical as develop a polymer drop-in replacement for brass why waste the effort on a round that you already intend to replace over the long-term? The other issue that while polymer cases (or at least hybrid polymer/metal cases) can probably be developed to work in conventional steel barrel firearms, such cases will not offer equivalent ballistic performance to the brass cases they replace. So, while it might be possible to develop a polymer case for the 5.56 round, it would not be capable of delivering the same performance as existing ammunition. Quote:
If so, when and where? |
||
August 29, 2017, 10:48 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 1,147
|
So, while it might be possible to develop a polymer case for the 5.56 round, it would not be capable of delivering the same performance as existing ammunition.
HDWHIT: I've not heard that before now. Why is that? But maybe they can't be loaded to the same pressure as a brass cased equivalent. |
August 29, 2017, 02:21 PM | #47 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
*All Terrain Leather Personnel Carriers..... |
|
August 29, 2017, 05:45 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 4, 2010
Posts: 5,468
|
Jim Bob is right. Unless he has trained or studied The current trends, he's going to know his local history of war, or have trained in NATO Euro tactics, and those cold war tactics for the most part didn't involve thousands of soldiers slogging through the mud.
Anyway, war has evolved into something with thousands of facets as our people work out ways to keep the men safer, for example, apcs. Get troops where they are needed, in minutes, in relative safety. But the one thing that remains an ongoing inescapable fact is that extra weight that has no inherent benefit is a bad thing, even if it's only a pound.
__________________
None. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|