Double Naught Spy
New member
Yet another next military cartridge claim. Hmmm....
Army’s next squad weapon will fire a never-before-seen ammo combination
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
The various branches are forever testing, requesting designs, making claims and plan etc., even fielding a few expiramental weapons for testing. In the end they tend to keep ordering more 5.56 ammo and weapons. Personally not a fan of 6.8 but not the worst thing ever either. (Just a personal thing about .270s). I dont understand why they are referencing the chamber pressure of the M1 tanks though, maybe makes it sound more impressive. I have no clue how much more chamber pressure a standard AR 15 sized lower can take, if it has strength to spare or it at or close to the limit. I am 100% for using the right tool for the job but logistics do play into it. Besides it would reduce my available supply of .223 brass.
stagpanther
New member
Chamber pressure that it can take is vastly above what the current cartridges are rate to.
No, it won't.
What the article is describing is one of a number of candidate systems that might replace the existing M249. The candidate systems span a range from 5.56 mm to 7 mm and a range of case materials from conventional brass to steel, polymer, hybrid, and caseless.
In graduate school in the early 1980's, I participated on a team that was doing some computational work on a replacement for 5.56x45 round. That round has yet to come into existence so any announcement of an imminent replacement is premature.
Caseless ammo was tried and rejected by HK from the 1960's to the 1980's in their G11. At a cost of 84.1 million DM(~ 53.3 million US). Daisy played with it in 1968 too.
"...a bullet that can kill everything..." The military doesn't care if the other guy is dead as long as he is no longer fighting back. Wounded is actually better as it takes more than one enemy out of the game.
"...that will certainly end up with NATO allies..." Kind of doubt that'll happen again. Other NATO countries are already PO'd about having the 7.62 and 5.56 jammed down their throats. No big, ugly, mean bear off to the East anymore either. Neither are budgets.
"...a bullet that can kill everything..." The military doesn't care if the other guy is dead as long as he is no longer fighting back. Wounded is actually better as it takes more than one enemy out of the game.
"...that will certainly end up with NATO allies..." Kind of doubt that'll happen again. Other NATO countries are already PO'd about having the 7.62 and 5.56 jammed down their throats. No big, ugly, mean bear off to the East anymore either. Neither are budgets.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
hdwhit said:
Yeah, 5.56 has survived more assassination attempts than Rasputin. Interestingly enough, Russia adopted 5.45 and China 5.8, even though neither of them fights the same as the U.S. doctrinally and the supposed sweet spot is in the 6.5-7mm range.
Not exactly like we have divisions engaged with ISIS, mostly its artillery and bombs (some 20 and 30mm particularly from the A-10).
Doctrinally the Ruskies and Chinks use the 223 caliber the same as we did, conscripts. Nam was not noted for its well trained riflemen. While short term is suited both conscripts and the terrain, long term 5 mm range comes up short on range and only long bullets help that out.
What we have is knee jerk reaction. I have to laugh at the 30-40 Kraig demise. Was it really not capable of doing the job or was it a less than well trained combat outfit running into a fairly well trained and dug in?
Being able to shoot 2500 yards (and the sights set to shoot those distance) and hitting something ? Volley fire and machine guns (brits gave up on the volley sights)
So now in Afghanistan we are outranged. Well duh (7.62 x 54) and........
What a 6.5 mm does is bridges the gap, allows good results out to 600-800 yards which is about max effective short of a DM or Sniper.
It max nix if its 6.5 or 6.8. Its the bullet weight and shape that counts (and the case capacity to get it where you want)
Oddly those same restrictive logistics allow the 7.62 NATO for a medium machine gun to be supplied at company level.
What it really amounts to is can we once and for all come up with a reasonable cost cartridge that can shoot at a reasonable range (0 to 1000 yads) with the lethality to kill someone.
And does anyone think that ISIS or the Taliban care about or are inhibited by wounded?
so no, wounded are not as good as dead. Often wounded can still fight.
So, we're talking about a proposed, but undeveloped ammo, in a proposed, and hopefully effective caliber, on a platform on which the as now non-existent ammo has never been tested.
Test with various ammo and systems have been ongoing for years for not only the Squad Auto Weapon but also a replacement of the M4 and sniper rifles. But it will be years before it makes it to the field.
Test with various ammo and systems have been ongoing for years for not only the Squad Auto Weapon but also a replacement of the M4 and sniper rifles. But it will be years before it makes it to the field.
Last edited:
Green and war is a bit of an oxymoron. I know they are looking at a polymer shell, but the projectiles, the killing and wounding part of the munition, still needs to be metal. It is considered immoral to use weapons that have fragments that are undetectable by X-ray and other diagnostic medical devices.
Yes - the country whose economy is largely dependent on their cheap goods being consumed by Americans. Makes complete sense for them to ever be aggressive to the US (outside of periodic tough talk to maintain the illusion of Communist-party toughness in the face of their subjects).
Just another wasteful project to keep the US military-industrial complex chugging along and sucking at the taxpayer's teat.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Poly ticks? No mas! 
The Brits fielded a .280 round, to mate with the EM2 Bullpup Rifle, in 1949?
No No said the US of A, 7.62X51 (308) much better. Then went to 5.56X45?
I tend to think that the design of the projectile would, or could be tweaked to increase the lethality at the point of impact? In the same 5.56X45?
Many hollow point cartridges could do the job, already out there.
No No said the US of A, 7.62X51 (308) much better. Then went to 5.56X45?
I tend to think that the design of the projectile would, or could be tweaked to increase the lethality at the point of impact? In the same 5.56X45?
Many hollow point cartridges could do the job, already out there.
stagpanther
New member
FN also submitted a 7mm competitor around that time if I recall. I was so fascinated by the ballistics of that cartridge I built a 284 win (as close as I could get without doing a 7mm-08) AR to see how it compared to the 308. Although the case has faults that limit the bullets used--the 7mm is still a superb performing bullet with outstanding ballistic performance.
FN also submitted a 7mm competitor around that time if I recall. I was so fascinated by the ballistics of that cartridge I built a 284 win (as close as I could get without doing a 7mm-08) AR to see how it compared to the 308. Although the case has faults that limit the bullets used--the 7mm is still a superb performing bullet with outstanding ballistic performance.
It would've made a great choice IMO. I've been following the subject a long time and remember reading about Cris Murrays 7x46mm UIAC (cartridge) back in 2010. I thought at the time and still do that it would make a superb AR cartridge. Why the military hasn't given it more interest is beyond me. But maybe they have and have ruled it out already. I would think it would be a good as the .264 USA and even surpass the .277USA. But maybe those cartridge have a larger cases capacity. (Just looked it up. The 7x46 UIAC has a 2.530 OAL. The .264USA has 2.6 OAL. Very close.)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/04/07/7x46mm-uiac-universal-intermediate-assault-cartridge/
It would've made a great choice IMO. I've been following the subject a long time and remember reading about Cris Murrays 7x46mm UIAC (cartridge) back in 2010. I thought at the time and still do that it would make a superb AR cartridge. Why the military hasn't given it more interest is beyond me. But maybe they have and have ruled it out already. I would think it would be a good as the .264 USA and even surpass the .277USA. But maybe those cartridge have a larger cases capacity. (Just looked it up. The 7x46 UIAC has a 2.530 OAL. The .264USA has 2.6 OAL. Very close.)
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/04/07/7x46mm-uiac-universal-intermediate-assault-cartridge/
Last edited: