XM-8 rifle test article
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
Badger Arms
Member
No, we never changed from 7.62x51. We still use that caliber extensively.
Tony Williams
Member
However, the US Army's principal RIFLE changed very rapidly from the 7.62mm M14 to the 5.56mm M16. The M16 was first ordered by the Army in 1963 (although it wasn't officially adopted until 1967). Production of the M14 was ordered to cease in 1963. The M14 lingered on for a while in Europe, but it was rapidly displaced by the M16 where the fighting was going on, in SE Asia.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Badger Arms
Member
True, but several MAJOR things would need to happen before any cartridge would replace the 7.62x51. First, a cartridge that had its effectiveness at range would have to be developed. Second, said cartridge would have to have the same tracer capability... that is we have to see just as bright a tracer at the same distance as with our current MG round. Third, said cartridge would have to offer inexpensive conversion of current weapons systems. The number of US weapons which use this round are limited but still substantial. The M60 (still prevalent in the National Guard and Reserves), the M240, the MiniGun, and numerous sniper systems.
Said round would also have to replace the .223 in its entirety. That would mean, at the least, 100% conversion rates for the M16, M4, and M249. The 6.5 Grendal has that capability as does the 6.8 Socom. This could be done, I'm sure. A proper magazine must be developed as well as a maturing and standardization of the candidate round.
Tony, I'm sure you're well aware that we've been there, done that. We have TRIED over and over again to introduce a compromise round that would accomplish everything that the previous 45 and 9mm SMG's, 30 carbines, 30-06, and 303 to name a few would do. This included weapons that were compact and yet powerful enough to fill the bill of weapons from the Sten through the Bren, Grease gun through the BAR. And every single attempt at that compromise round/rifle combination has FAILED MISERABLY.
We're on the track now to repeat the failures of the past. The M14 and similar European efforts of the G3 and FAL were all compromise weapons for better or worse chambered for a round that was a compromise round that was nothing more than a reskinned full-power round.
Now we come along with calibers like the 5.56 and later 4.85 to make up for the low-end controllability. The M193 worked and worked well out of a 20" barrel with a 1-in-12" twist. In the spirit of international cooperation, we let out defenses down and NEUTERED the effectiveness and lethality of the M193 and further ignored reason by cutting 5" off the barrel of a gun who's main advantage WAS its velocity. We now have a gun that shoots a 22 caliber bullet at no greater velocity than the caliber it tried to replace.
We need to increase the effectiveness of the smallest of the small arms. We need to replace the SS109 / M4 combo with something that will actually be effective in combat. I've got no illusions that it'll happen, but if it does happen and we get the 6.5 or 6.8, I seriously doubt they will replace the 7.62x51.
Said round would also have to replace the .223 in its entirety. That would mean, at the least, 100% conversion rates for the M16, M4, and M249. The 6.5 Grendal has that capability as does the 6.8 Socom. This could be done, I'm sure. A proper magazine must be developed as well as a maturing and standardization of the candidate round.
Tony, I'm sure you're well aware that we've been there, done that. We have TRIED over and over again to introduce a compromise round that would accomplish everything that the previous 45 and 9mm SMG's, 30 carbines, 30-06, and 303 to name a few would do. This included weapons that were compact and yet powerful enough to fill the bill of weapons from the Sten through the Bren, Grease gun through the BAR. And every single attempt at that compromise round/rifle combination has FAILED MISERABLY.
We're on the track now to repeat the failures of the past. The M14 and similar European efforts of the G3 and FAL were all compromise weapons for better or worse chambered for a round that was a compromise round that was nothing more than a reskinned full-power round.
Now we come along with calibers like the 5.56 and later 4.85 to make up for the low-end controllability. The M193 worked and worked well out of a 20" barrel with a 1-in-12" twist. In the spirit of international cooperation, we let out defenses down and NEUTERED the effectiveness and lethality of the M193 and further ignored reason by cutting 5" off the barrel of a gun who's main advantage WAS its velocity. We now have a gun that shoots a 22 caliber bullet at no greater velocity than the caliber it tried to replace.
We need to increase the effectiveness of the smallest of the small arms. We need to replace the SS109 / M4 combo with something that will actually be effective in combat. I've got no illusions that it'll happen, but if it does happen and we get the 6.5 or 6.8, I seriously doubt they will replace the 7.62x51.
Tony Williams
Member
I'd have to question that - the only serious attempt made by the US military to produce a compromise round was the .276 Pedersen, which was canned for financial reasons because of the vast quantity of .30-06 ammo in store, not because of any technical failings.
Towards the end of WW2 up to the early 1950s, the US Army was fixated on its 'lightweight .30 rifle' concept which was meant to couple a 7 lb multipurpose selective fire weapon (fine so far) with a new smaller cartridge to replace the .30-06, the .30 Carbine and the .45 in the M3 SMG (good, good) but which had to match the power of the .30-06 and remain in .30 calibre (impossible!!!).
Several NATO countries, led by the UK but including Canada and Belgium, tried very hard for several years to persuade the US Ordnance Department that such a specification could not work, and that a smaller calibre was needed (both .270 and .280 were proposed) all to no avail. Even the US Army's own testers pointed out the problems. This is from 'Assault Rifle', a new book I'm writing with Max Popenker (of the guns.ru site):
"At Fort Benning, the Trials Board reported on the cartridges as follows:
"That the T65 Cal .30 is not satisfactory because of its excessive recoil, blast, flash and smoke. That the Cal .280 is not satisfactory because of its comparatively high trajectory. That of the two basic types of rounds submitted for test the British calibre .280 is preferred."
The detailed findings from the Fort Benning tests showed that while the T65 had a flatter trajectory and produced more severe wounds at ranges of less than 1,000 yards (900 metres), the British round became more effective at longer ranges because of its superior ballistic coefficient. At 1,000 yards the .280 could penetrate body armour 70% of the time, compared with 60% for the .30. The British cartridge also produced considerably less flash and smoke. Most significantly, while the T25 was found to be the more accurate rifle and achieved more hits per minute when fired from a bipod, the EM-2 was far superior in this respect when fired from the shoulder."
The multipurpose cartridge concept is entirely possible, and the 6.8x43 (while not ideal) could do the job. I hope it gets the chance, but past experience is not encouraging. There is some cause for a flicker of optimism, however; after all, the US Army is considering adopting a new rifle which needs new magazines anyway; the M249s are wearing out; and the importance of SOCOM seems to be increasing within the US forces. Time will tell...
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Badger Arms
Member
The numerous attempts began with the 7.62x51 which was intended to fill the role of a "do-everyting" round. The 276 Pederson was an outstanding misunderstanding of the politics of the time as well as the requirements of a battle rifle.
My opinion: the 250-3000 Savage was an outstanding choice that was completely overlooked. The reality was that the 30-06 was stocked in large quantities, however that represented maybe 4 months in actual combat. Even the Ordnance Department realized they needed a lower-powered round with the coming of an autoloading rifle and the desire to increase capacity. They tried a 25 caliber (Ed, help me out here) and the 276 of course. Bottom line was the 'soldiers' in the loop didn't want anybody shooting more than carefully aimed shots. If you give us an autoloader, it better be full-powered and it should look and feel like the 1903!
Back to reality. We were stuck with the 30-06 during WWII, however the need for a lighter round was SCREAMING at us. It was also screaming at nearly everybody else. We and the Germans did something about it for different reasons. The 30 Carbine and the Germans with the 7.92 Kurz. The Japanese never really got it, but the British and Russians compensated with submachineguns to fill the high-capacity, light caliber role.
After the war, the Russians were the ones tho truly GOT IT and developed an intermediate round that really could do most of the jobs of the SMG, Automatic rifle, and Battle rifle combined.
We, however, stuck to our obsolescent concept of "Minuteman Marksmanship" which ended up coming to a point in Vietnam. We NEEDED a small caliber and the 30 carbine was not it. From this time on we engaged in the following programs:
1) SCHV
2) Carten's Wonderfully mistimed 25 Caliber Proposal
3) The AR-15
3) SPIW
4) Nato Standardization Trials -- SS109
5) JSSAP And the M16A2
6) ACR
7) OICW
Now, while we were doing all of this, NATO and you guys were going through fits of being left out and bullied down one hair-brained path after another. Not that Great Britian could get a weapons program together either. Heck, your Aerospace industry (my real strength) couldn't build a plane to save their lives. It's amazing that the one good aircraft you COULD make ended up being more of a helicopter than an airplane... but I digress.
Some of the above programs were serious like the JSSAP and some were Red Herrings like the SPIW and Carten's 25 caliber. Carten had the right idea... a 25 caliber is the correct answer... my opinion again. The underlying conditions that sparked these programs were serious and remain serious today. There is a general lack of vision and leadership in the American Ordnance system. At least before they were disbanded as a separate office, Ordnance had vision -- the wrong vision, but still vision.
Now, we march headlong into another debacle. The British are hot and heavy to buy something, ANYTHING but the L85. We are trying to justify buying the XM8 (corporate Welfare to HK and a reward for their support in the Middle East maybe?). It's more than likely we'll end up both shooting HK G36 (XM8, whatever) rifles. The reliability problems will likely end and perhaps nobody will care that we are still under-gunned. If you are shooting a 22, shoot 'em TWICE!
In the background, we'll still have the 7.62x51 trudging along. Why replace it?
My opinion: the 250-3000 Savage was an outstanding choice that was completely overlooked. The reality was that the 30-06 was stocked in large quantities, however that represented maybe 4 months in actual combat. Even the Ordnance Department realized they needed a lower-powered round with the coming of an autoloading rifle and the desire to increase capacity. They tried a 25 caliber (Ed, help me out here) and the 276 of course. Bottom line was the 'soldiers' in the loop didn't want anybody shooting more than carefully aimed shots. If you give us an autoloader, it better be full-powered and it should look and feel like the 1903!
Back to reality. We were stuck with the 30-06 during WWII, however the need for a lighter round was SCREAMING at us. It was also screaming at nearly everybody else. We and the Germans did something about it for different reasons. The 30 Carbine and the Germans with the 7.92 Kurz. The Japanese never really got it, but the British and Russians compensated with submachineguns to fill the high-capacity, light caliber role.
After the war, the Russians were the ones tho truly GOT IT and developed an intermediate round that really could do most of the jobs of the SMG, Automatic rifle, and Battle rifle combined.
We, however, stuck to our obsolescent concept of "Minuteman Marksmanship" which ended up coming to a point in Vietnam. We NEEDED a small caliber and the 30 carbine was not it. From this time on we engaged in the following programs:
1) SCHV
2) Carten's Wonderfully mistimed 25 Caliber Proposal
3) The AR-15
3) SPIW
4) Nato Standardization Trials -- SS109
5) JSSAP And the M16A2
6) ACR
7) OICW
Now, while we were doing all of this, NATO and you guys were going through fits of being left out and bullied down one hair-brained path after another. Not that Great Britian could get a weapons program together either. Heck, your Aerospace industry (my real strength) couldn't build a plane to save their lives. It's amazing that the one good aircraft you COULD make ended up being more of a helicopter than an airplane... but I digress.
Some of the above programs were serious like the JSSAP and some were Red Herrings like the SPIW and Carten's 25 caliber. Carten had the right idea... a 25 caliber is the correct answer... my opinion again. The underlying conditions that sparked these programs were serious and remain serious today. There is a general lack of vision and leadership in the American Ordnance system. At least before they were disbanded as a separate office, Ordnance had vision -- the wrong vision, but still vision.
Now, we march headlong into another debacle. The British are hot and heavy to buy something, ANYTHING but the L85. We are trying to justify buying the XM8 (corporate Welfare to HK and a reward for their support in the Middle East maybe?). It's more than likely we'll end up both shooting HK G36 (XM8, whatever) rifles. The reliability problems will likely end and perhaps nobody will care that we are still under-gunned. If you are shooting a 22, shoot 'em TWICE!
In the background, we'll still have the 7.62x51 trudging along. Why replace it?
Tony Williams
Member
Some more quotes from 'Assault Rifle':
"There had been some official efforts towards considering intermediate calibres, with the US Ordnance Department in the late 1920s sponsoring comparative trials of the effectiveness of different rifle cartridges using anaesthetised pigs and goats to assess wounding effectiveness. They concentrated on a .25 (6.35 mm), a .276 (7 x 51) and the existing .30-06 (7.62 x 63) rifle / MG round. The .25 most impressed the testers, but the Department chose the Garand rifle chambered for the .276 Pedersen cartridge which would have made an effective assault rifle round. At this point, General Douglas MacArthur, the Army Chief of Staff, insisted on the new rifle being chambered for the .30-06 cartridge, mainly because of the large quantity of ammunition available in that calibre but also due to concerns about the performance of the .276, especially at long-range, so the Garand was duly converted to .30-06 and another opportunity was lost.
In 1930, the noted Russian gun historian, V. E. Markevich, then working
at Red Army's Weapons Scientific & Research Range, suggested to Red Army weapons command that:
"The new 'pistol carbines' (the designation of SMGs then in development) should not be built around pistol cartridges, because of range limitations; instead, such carbines should use a cartridge intermediate in power between the pistol and rifle cartridges. It is ridiculous to simply shorten the current rifle cartridge case and use the current (7.62 mm) bullet for such cartridge, because of the rainbow-shaped trajectory and increased recoil. A true intermediate cartridge should be of 6.5mm caliber, and such a cartridge is already available in the form of American commercial .25 Remington cartridge (7.58 g at 650 m/s: 117 grains at 2125 fps). The carbine for such cartridge should be lightweight, have a magazine capacity of 20-30 rounds, and be effective at ranges of between 100 and 300 meters."
Like all such theorists at the time, he was ignored by the military. This is particularly ironic as the .25 Remington shares the same case dimensions as the .30 Remington being used as the basis for the 6.8 x 43 Remington SPC, the latest experimental military cartridge currently under test in the USA.
There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62 x 33 round. When developed in 1941, it was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly to be effective at the required 300 metre range. It was really a half-way stage between the SMG and the assault rifle. The military use of the .30 Carbine cartridge has recently been revived by the Israeli company IMI, which chambers it in
the Magal SMG."
and:
"Towards the end of World War 2 the USA had also begun thinking about replacing the .30-06 cartridge and associated weaponry, and had developed the concept of a selective-fire 'Lightweight Rifle'. What they really wanted was the selective-fire .30 M2 Carbine but with the hitting power of the .30 Garand, at a weight of 3.2 kg (7 lbs). It was rather ambitiously hoped that this one weapon would replace the M1 Garand and the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (both in 7.62 x 63), the M1/2 Carbine in 7.62 x 33, and the M3 SMG in .45 calibre (11.5 x 23). The Lightweight Rifle was intended to chamber a shorter cartridge than the 7.62 x 63, but still with a reasonable long-range performance so it could entirely replace the older round; it was required to have "a stopping and wounding power which shall not be less than that of the standard calibre .30 ammunition [7.62 x 63] fired from the M1 at ranges of 400, 800, 1,200 and 2,000 yards [up to 1,830 m]". Many experiments followed but, contrary to all of the logic of ammunition design, the US Ordnance Department decided that they wanted to retain the .30 inch calibre. The Americans accordingly ended up with what was simply the .30-06 case shortened from 63 to 51 mm, but with a very similar performance at around 3,500 j (2,600 ft lbs) muzzle energy (made possible by improvements in propellant technology) and therefore very similar recoil. Inevitably, this meant that the planned new selective-fire rifle would prove uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire, and so it proved years before the M14 (based on the old .30-06 M1 Garand) finally entered service."
As far as the British efforts were concerned:
"Next in the field came the British, who in 1945 set up the Small Arms Calibre Panel in order to determine the optimum cartridge for a lightweight rifle. After many calculations and experiments mainly involving rounds of between .25 to .27 inch calibre (6.35-6.8 mm), they reported in 1947 in favour of further development of two alternative designs. One was a .27 inch (6.8 x 46) firing a steel-cored 100 grain bullet at 2,750-2,800 fps (6.5 g at 840-850 m/s), which still retained 81 ft lbs (109 j) of energy at 2,000 yards (1,830 m), a significant figure as the estimated energy required to inflict an injury to an unprotected man is around 60 ft lbs (80 j). The other was a .276 (7 x 43: later redesignated .280 to avoid confusion with earlier cartridges) which was tested with bullets weighing between 8.4 and 9 grams (130-140 grains) at between 747-710 m/s (2,450-2,330 fps). The 130 grain/2,450 fps loading had a retained energy of 100 ft lbs at 2,000 yards (135 joules at 1,830 m). Eventually a loading of a Belgian-designed 9 g bullet at 736 m/s (140 grains at 2,415 fps) was decided on. The .280 calibre (actually 7 mm, with a .276 inch bore and .284 bullet) was a little larger than was thought ideal but it was selected for further development, reportedly in order to try to meet American preferences for good long-range performance. For the same reason, the original case head diameter was modified slightly to match that of the American .30-06 to enable them to rebarrel existing guns more easily, leading to a change in designation to .280/30.
In conjunction with the .280 two new rifles were developed, the EM-1 and EM-2 bullpups, described in more detail in the section on the UK. It is important to note that, unlike the FCARs described above, the .280 was intended to replace entirely both the 9 mm SMG and the .303 inch rifle / MG rounds. It was envisaged that the rifle would normally be used in semi-automatic mode at ranges in excess of about 150 metres, with fully-automatic fire being used in short bursts at shorter ranges. The .280 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. But fate was about to disturb these careful plans."
I have handled the EM-2 and it is a very neat piece of kit: light,compact and well-balanced, and reportedly easy to control in auto fire. The same .280 round was chambered in the companion TADEN GPMG, which was a belt-fed Bren. That combination is one of the 'might-have-beens' of military small arms history, as it still looks pretty good today.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
"There had been some official efforts towards considering intermediate calibres, with the US Ordnance Department in the late 1920s sponsoring comparative trials of the effectiveness of different rifle cartridges using anaesthetised pigs and goats to assess wounding effectiveness. They concentrated on a .25 (6.35 mm), a .276 (7 x 51) and the existing .30-06 (7.62 x 63) rifle / MG round. The .25 most impressed the testers, but the Department chose the Garand rifle chambered for the .276 Pedersen cartridge which would have made an effective assault rifle round. At this point, General Douglas MacArthur, the Army Chief of Staff, insisted on the new rifle being chambered for the .30-06 cartridge, mainly because of the large quantity of ammunition available in that calibre but also due to concerns about the performance of the .276, especially at long-range, so the Garand was duly converted to .30-06 and another opportunity was lost.
In 1930, the noted Russian gun historian, V. E. Markevich, then working
at Red Army's Weapons Scientific & Research Range, suggested to Red Army weapons command that:
"The new 'pistol carbines' (the designation of SMGs then in development) should not be built around pistol cartridges, because of range limitations; instead, such carbines should use a cartridge intermediate in power between the pistol and rifle cartridges. It is ridiculous to simply shorten the current rifle cartridge case and use the current (7.62 mm) bullet for such cartridge, because of the rainbow-shaped trajectory and increased recoil. A true intermediate cartridge should be of 6.5mm caliber, and such a cartridge is already available in the form of American commercial .25 Remington cartridge (7.58 g at 650 m/s: 117 grains at 2125 fps). The carbine for such cartridge should be lightweight, have a magazine capacity of 20-30 rounds, and be effective at ranges of between 100 and 300 meters."
Like all such theorists at the time, he was ignored by the military. This is particularly ironic as the .25 Remington shares the same case dimensions as the .30 Remington being used as the basis for the 6.8 x 43 Remington SPC, the latest experimental military cartridge currently under test in the USA.
There was one rather odd American development not followed by any other country - the M1 Carbine. This was a light, semi-automatic rifle chambered for an intermediate, straight-cased 7.62 x 33 round. When developed in 1941, it was not originally intended for front-line troops, but more as a self-defence weapon for second-line units, on the sensible grounds that it was much easier to shoot accurately than a pistol. The M2 version came with a full-auto option, and thereby comes close to our definition of an assault rifle, but the cartridge was rather weak and the light, blunt-nosed bullet lost its modest velocity too quickly to be effective at the required 300 metre range. It was really a half-way stage between the SMG and the assault rifle. The military use of the .30 Carbine cartridge has recently been revived by the Israeli company IMI, which chambers it in
the Magal SMG."
and:
"Towards the end of World War 2 the USA had also begun thinking about replacing the .30-06 cartridge and associated weaponry, and had developed the concept of a selective-fire 'Lightweight Rifle'. What they really wanted was the selective-fire .30 M2 Carbine but with the hitting power of the .30 Garand, at a weight of 3.2 kg (7 lbs). It was rather ambitiously hoped that this one weapon would replace the M1 Garand and the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (both in 7.62 x 63), the M1/2 Carbine in 7.62 x 33, and the M3 SMG in .45 calibre (11.5 x 23). The Lightweight Rifle was intended to chamber a shorter cartridge than the 7.62 x 63, but still with a reasonable long-range performance so it could entirely replace the older round; it was required to have "a stopping and wounding power which shall not be less than that of the standard calibre .30 ammunition [7.62 x 63] fired from the M1 at ranges of 400, 800, 1,200 and 2,000 yards [up to 1,830 m]". Many experiments followed but, contrary to all of the logic of ammunition design, the US Ordnance Department decided that they wanted to retain the .30 inch calibre. The Americans accordingly ended up with what was simply the .30-06 case shortened from 63 to 51 mm, but with a very similar performance at around 3,500 j (2,600 ft lbs) muzzle energy (made possible by improvements in propellant technology) and therefore very similar recoil. Inevitably, this meant that the planned new selective-fire rifle would prove uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire, and so it proved years before the M14 (based on the old .30-06 M1 Garand) finally entered service."
As far as the British efforts were concerned:
"Next in the field came the British, who in 1945 set up the Small Arms Calibre Panel in order to determine the optimum cartridge for a lightweight rifle. After many calculations and experiments mainly involving rounds of between .25 to .27 inch calibre (6.35-6.8 mm), they reported in 1947 in favour of further development of two alternative designs. One was a .27 inch (6.8 x 46) firing a steel-cored 100 grain bullet at 2,750-2,800 fps (6.5 g at 840-850 m/s), which still retained 81 ft lbs (109 j) of energy at 2,000 yards (1,830 m), a significant figure as the estimated energy required to inflict an injury to an unprotected man is around 60 ft lbs (80 j). The other was a .276 (7 x 43: later redesignated .280 to avoid confusion with earlier cartridges) which was tested with bullets weighing between 8.4 and 9 grams (130-140 grains) at between 747-710 m/s (2,450-2,330 fps). The 130 grain/2,450 fps loading had a retained energy of 100 ft lbs at 2,000 yards (135 joules at 1,830 m). Eventually a loading of a Belgian-designed 9 g bullet at 736 m/s (140 grains at 2,415 fps) was decided on. The .280 calibre (actually 7 mm, with a .276 inch bore and .284 bullet) was a little larger than was thought ideal but it was selected for further development, reportedly in order to try to meet American preferences for good long-range performance. For the same reason, the original case head diameter was modified slightly to match that of the American .30-06 to enable them to rebarrel existing guns more easily, leading to a change in designation to .280/30.
In conjunction with the .280 two new rifles were developed, the EM-1 and EM-2 bullpups, described in more detail in the section on the UK. It is important to note that, unlike the FCARs described above, the .280 was intended to replace entirely both the 9 mm SMG and the .303 inch rifle / MG rounds. It was envisaged that the rifle would normally be used in semi-automatic mode at ranges in excess of about 150 metres, with fully-automatic fire being used in short bursts at shorter ranges. The .280 cartridge was formally adopted in August 1951 as the '7 mm Mk 1Z', at the same time as the EM-2 was adopted as the 'Rifle, No.9 Mk 1'. But fate was about to disturb these careful plans."
I have handled the EM-2 and it is a very neat piece of kit: light,compact and well-balanced, and reportedly easy to control in auto fire. The same .280 round was chambered in the companion TADEN GPMG, which was a belt-fed Bren. That combination is one of the 'might-have-beens' of military small arms history, as it still looks pretty good today.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Badger Arms
Member
The Russian take is the only one I hadn't heard. Seems somebody, again, had gotten it right and was ignored. Yes, any slow bullet of larger diameter is going to have that Rainbow trajectory. That includes the 276 Pederson, the 7.62x33 and 7.62x39, and the British 'intermediate' caliber research as well.
As I said earlier, the caliber 25 (or even 6.5) offers the best compromise between velocity, bullet weight, and wounding power. The current trend seems to be towards ballistically optimized bullets to flatten out the 'rainbow' but I don't think that will completely solve the problem. I think the bullets should start out at around 3000 fps, but no less than 2700 fps. The initial higher velocity means less target lead, flatter trajectory, and greater 'shock' on target. That greater shock isn't only on humans, it gives more of hint of where your bullets are hitting and allows one to walk their fire onto the target.
As I said earlier, the caliber 25 (or even 6.5) offers the best compromise between velocity, bullet weight, and wounding power. The current trend seems to be towards ballistically optimized bullets to flatten out the 'rainbow' but I don't think that will completely solve the problem. I think the bullets should start out at around 3000 fps, but no less than 2700 fps. The initial higher velocity means less target lead, flatter trajectory, and greater 'shock' on target. That greater shock isn't only on humans, it gives more of hint of where your bullets are hitting and allows one to walk their fire onto the target.
Tony Williams
Member
Well, the 6.8x43 is fairly close since the 115 grain bullet is launched at 2,650 fps from a 16.5 inch barrel, or 2,800 fps with a few more inches. As the BC is similar to the 150 grain 7.62mm bullet, the trajectory will also be very similar from a similar-length barrel. And it's about 75% of the weight of the 7.62mm bullet, not enough of a difference IMO to be worth keeping the 7.62x51 if (a big if) the new round replaces the 5.56mm.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Badger Arms
Member
Reading up on the 6.5 Grendal, it seems to start faster and has a much better BC therefore flattening out the trajectory. Of course, we are both speaking in armchair commando terms. The rounds are functionally interchangeable and a developed version of either would be superior to the SS109 and, in my opinion, significantly more effective than the 77gr 5.56 bullets we've heard about recently.
Tony, Badger,
You guys are ignoring the most important thing when it comes to terminal effects, actual construction of the bullet. There is no way to judge how effective a bullet will be at anything but hitting the target by looking at it's shape, weight, length and ballistic coefficient.
There are a lot of unsubstantiated, anecdotal complaints about M855 effectiveness 9lack thereof actually) flying around the internet. Yet according to Dr. Fackler's tests in the late 1980s, M855 was almost identical to M193 when it came to terminal effects. What happened?
Ezell's The Black Rifle states on page 340 that:
My theory is that later production M855 may not all have the airspace between the jacket and the penetrator which could be causing the spotty reports of poor terminal effects. Although it's just as likely that the entertainment industry has given us a mindset that causes people to have unrealistic expectations of their small arms effectiveness.
Internal design of the bullet has everything to do with how it will perform in flesh.
Jeff
You guys are ignoring the most important thing when it comes to terminal effects, actual construction of the bullet. There is no way to judge how effective a bullet will be at anything but hitting the target by looking at it's shape, weight, length and ballistic coefficient.
There are a lot of unsubstantiated, anecdotal complaints about M855 effectiveness 9lack thereof actually) flying around the internet. Yet according to Dr. Fackler's tests in the late 1980s, M855 was almost identical to M193 when it came to terminal effects. What happened?
Ezell's The Black Rifle states on page 340 that:
My theory is that later production M855 may not all have the airspace between the jacket and the penetrator which could be causing the spotty reports of poor terminal effects. Although it's just as likely that the entertainment industry has given us a mindset that causes people to have unrealistic expectations of their small arms effectiveness.
Internal design of the bullet has everything to do with how it will perform in flesh.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
Take the test results with a grain of salt, Jeff. The SS109 was developed for armor piercing. Because of its duplex core, it tended to yaw and fragment in tissue to a greater degree than a homogenous core would have. The problem with the tests is that I believe they represented a 20" barrel and significantly higher muzzle velocity than we are dealing with in Iraq. Most of the negative results refer to the M4 Carbine and its abreviated barrels. When you compare MODERN M855 loadings shot from 1-in-7" twist 14.5" barrels to the M193 from 1-in-12" twist 20" barrels even a layman can tell you why there are complaints.
I've said throughout these arguments that the bullet needs to be 'fully developed.' I believe that the Russian design is a good one. Perhaps we should have a steel penetrator behind a significant 'airspace' backed by a lead core which is designed to separate from the steel in a soft target. This in a ballistically optimum shape and fired at no less than 2700fps. All things being equal, you can apply these design concepts to 5.56mm, 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, and even 7.62mm bullets. You'll end up with similar terminal effects based on velocity with larger and heavier bullets (if pushed to the same velocity) producing greater damage. This assumes an equivelant sectional density and velocity. The main difference is that for a given SD, larger bullets will have a greater potential Ballistic Coeficient and will therefore fly better, right?
So my comments assume that bullets are of optimal construction while still meeting a loose reading of the accepted rules of war and associated treaties. I can go on for hours about terminal ballistics, but I think the Russians got it close albiet with a too-small bullet when they developed the 5.45x39 caliber. What the 6.5mm Grendal would be is a compromise in cartridge size between the 5.56 and 7.62x51. My choice for bullets would be a hybrid of the best aspects of the SS109 (penetration) and the soft-target performance of the AK74 round combined with a VLD ballistically optimized bullet. It can certainly be done and it certainly should be done but is there the vision to accomplish this?
I've said throughout these arguments that the bullet needs to be 'fully developed.' I believe that the Russian design is a good one. Perhaps we should have a steel penetrator behind a significant 'airspace' backed by a lead core which is designed to separate from the steel in a soft target. This in a ballistically optimum shape and fired at no less than 2700fps. All things being equal, you can apply these design concepts to 5.56mm, 6mm, 6.5mm, 6.8mm, and even 7.62mm bullets. You'll end up with similar terminal effects based on velocity with larger and heavier bullets (if pushed to the same velocity) producing greater damage. This assumes an equivelant sectional density and velocity. The main difference is that for a given SD, larger bullets will have a greater potential Ballistic Coeficient and will therefore fly better, right?
So my comments assume that bullets are of optimal construction while still meeting a loose reading of the accepted rules of war and associated treaties. I can go on for hours about terminal ballistics, but I think the Russians got it close albiet with a too-small bullet when they developed the 5.45x39 caliber. What the 6.5mm Grendal would be is a compromise in cartridge size between the 5.56 and 7.62x51. My choice for bullets would be a hybrid of the best aspects of the SS109 (penetration) and the soft-target performance of the AK74 round combined with a VLD ballistically optimized bullet. It can certainly be done and it certainly should be done but is there the vision to accomplish this?
Badger,
SS109 was NOT designed to be armor piercing. That notion came from a requirement to penetrate the old M1 steel helmet at 600 meters. M855 came from a program to extend the effective range of 5.56mm ammunition. M995 is a tungsten core AP round that was developed in the mid-90s to be a 5.56mm AP round. It's only issued linked for use in the M249.
I've seen most of the AARs coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no complaints about lethality in official channels. It's something we like to argue about here, but it's not an issue to the Army. That's what's going to be the death nell of the 6.8 SPC round. The Army is unconvinced that there is anything wrong with the lethality of M855. SOCOM isn't going to go down the 6.8 SPC road alone. Like it or not, M855 will be the round for the forseeable future. The FY05 defnse budget includes $173 million for 5.56mm amo of all types.
Jeff
SS109 was NOT designed to be armor piercing. That notion came from a requirement to penetrate the old M1 steel helmet at 600 meters. M855 came from a program to extend the effective range of 5.56mm ammunition. M995 is a tungsten core AP round that was developed in the mid-90s to be a 5.56mm AP round. It's only issued linked for use in the M249.
I've seen most of the AARs coming out of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are no complaints about lethality in official channels. It's something we like to argue about here, but it's not an issue to the Army. That's what's going to be the death nell of the 6.8 SPC round. The Army is unconvinced that there is anything wrong with the lethality of M855. SOCOM isn't going to go down the 6.8 SPC road alone. Like it or not, M855 will be the round for the forseeable future. The FY05 defnse budget includes $173 million for 5.56mm amo of all types.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
I disagree with your assessment that the M855 is not an Armor Piercing round. There is a dedicated AP round out there, yes, but the SS109 outperforms is still an AP round if only a semi-AP round. I'll try and reverse it a little, why would you design a bullet with a steel core in the nose and a lead core in the rear if you didn't want AP properties? You wouldn't and they didn't. The design was a compromise between AP and Ball ammo and AP characteristics are inherint in the design and intentional. Don't know why you would disagree.
As to official reports, official reports throughout history have been unreliable and biased. BTW, when did I ever say that I didn't like M855 ammo? Also, who said we were throwing out the 5.56x45mm? Much of this discussion I'd consider completely theoretical.
Do you think the M855 from a 14.5" barrel is as effective as the M193 out of a 20" Barrel? No John Kerry answers here, tell me straigt. Better yet, tell me whether or not the 12.5" barrel will give enoug velocity to an M855 to make it 'effective' in combat. I'd say MARGINALLY effective.
As to official reports, official reports throughout history have been unreliable and biased. BTW, when did I ever say that I didn't like M855 ammo? Also, who said we were throwing out the 5.56x45mm? Much of this discussion I'd consider completely theoretical.
Do you think the M855 from a 14.5" barrel is as effective as the M193 out of a 20" Barrel? No John Kerry answers here, tell me straigt. Better yet, tell me whether or not the 12.5" barrel will give enoug velocity to an M855 to make it 'effective' in combat. I'd say MARGINALLY effective.
I'm not going to quibble over M855 being AP. Everything I've read says that FN originally considered it to be semi-AP, whatever that's supposed to mean. Kinda like being semi pregnant if you ask me 
. No one, not the military or BATF considers it to be AP.
You may look down on the official reports, but no change in equipment or policy comes without the problem showing up in after action reports. And all the reports of M855 failing out of the M4 are anecdotal.
No, I don't think M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is effective as M193 out of a 20" barrel past the range that it falls below 2500 fps. A 12.5" barrel cuts the range at which the round is effective below what I'd consider acceptable for anything but specialized CQB use.
I've got all the data on the 6.8 SPC. It's very impressive. The point I was making before we got sidetracked was that the actual construction of the bullet has a lot to do with it's terminal effects. Check out all the different terminal effects from various manufactuer's 7.62x51 ammo here:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
There are several different rounds that all meet the NATO spec, but have very different terminal effects. The difference is in the construction of the bullets. I think any new round we develop should be designed to have good terminal effects on the target from the start. Not have them to be an accidental byproduct of the development.
Jeff
. No one, not the military or BATF considers it to be AP. You may look down on the official reports, but no change in equipment or policy comes without the problem showing up in after action reports. And all the reports of M855 failing out of the M4 are anecdotal.
No, I don't think M855 out of a 14.5" barrel is effective as M193 out of a 20" barrel past the range that it falls below 2500 fps. A 12.5" barrel cuts the range at which the round is effective below what I'd consider acceptable for anything but specialized CQB use.
I've got all the data on the 6.8 SPC. It's very impressive. The point I was making before we got sidetracked was that the actual construction of the bullet has a lot to do with it's terminal effects. Check out all the different terminal effects from various manufactuer's 7.62x51 ammo here:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
There are several different rounds that all meet the NATO spec, but have very different terminal effects. The difference is in the construction of the bullets. I think any new round we develop should be designed to have good terminal effects on the target from the start. Not have them to be an accidental byproduct of the development.
Jeff
Tony Williams
Member
A few comments, gentlemen.
I agree entirely that bullet construction is important, and the smaller the calibre you have, the more important it is (it doesn't matter if you're hit with a .50 cal, it matters a lot to a .22 which needs all the help it can get). The ideal bullet is one which has enough penetration to get through body armour (I agree that the M855 is a SAP rather than AP, but is none the worse for that), tumbles quite rapidly to maximise the wound channel (so it needs a rearwards weight distribution) and ideally fragments as it tumbles thus providing two or more wound channels. Tumbling is unavoidable with a pointed bullet, but concentrating the weight to the back (i.e. with a hollow tip or a light tip filler like the .303 Mk VII) helps this. Fragmentation depends on the fine details of bullet construction; a relatively thin jacket with a cannelure helps.
The US 5.56mm bullets are not reliable fragmenters because it is not a design requirement so is not tested for (there could be problems with the Hague convention if it were). This probably accounts for the very patchy performance. Whatever the official reports say, it is obvious that SOCOM is not satisfied with the terminal effects of the 5.56mm (in any bullet loading) otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to sponsor the 6.8x43 development in the first place; and by all (admittedly anecdotal) accounts SOCOM are very keen to introduce the 6.8mm, which is reported to fragment reliably out to 300m. SOCOM have very different procurement routes to the standard military procedures, and if they want something they can generally get it.
As far as I can judge, the 6.5mm Grendel has the edge in performance over the 6.8mm, I suspect that the reason the 6.8mm was selected is that the .30 Rem on which it is based has a slimmer case than the 7.62x39 on which the Grendel is based, so it is lighter and you can pack more of them into a magazine. All weapons involve compromises between conflicting desirables.
On the basis of the current information, I believe that the 6.8x43 would be a very worthwhile improvement over the 5.56x45, and would make the 7.62x51 unnecessary. Given that SOCOM is increasing in influence (I recall hearing recently that it was considered to be the right type of organisation to deal with modern conflicts, so may grow in size), I think it is likely that they will get the 6.8mm if they want it, and that it will then stand a chance of spreading over time into other forces.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
I agree entirely that bullet construction is important, and the smaller the calibre you have, the more important it is (it doesn't matter if you're hit with a .50 cal, it matters a lot to a .22 which needs all the help it can get). The ideal bullet is one which has enough penetration to get through body armour (I agree that the M855 is a SAP rather than AP, but is none the worse for that), tumbles quite rapidly to maximise the wound channel (so it needs a rearwards weight distribution) and ideally fragments as it tumbles thus providing two or more wound channels. Tumbling is unavoidable with a pointed bullet, but concentrating the weight to the back (i.e. with a hollow tip or a light tip filler like the .303 Mk VII) helps this. Fragmentation depends on the fine details of bullet construction; a relatively thin jacket with a cannelure helps.
The US 5.56mm bullets are not reliable fragmenters because it is not a design requirement so is not tested for (there could be problems with the Hague convention if it were). This probably accounts for the very patchy performance. Whatever the official reports say, it is obvious that SOCOM is not satisfied with the terminal effects of the 5.56mm (in any bullet loading) otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to sponsor the 6.8x43 development in the first place; and by all (admittedly anecdotal) accounts SOCOM are very keen to introduce the 6.8mm, which is reported to fragment reliably out to 300m. SOCOM have very different procurement routes to the standard military procedures, and if they want something they can generally get it.
As far as I can judge, the 6.5mm Grendel has the edge in performance over the 6.8mm, I suspect that the reason the 6.8mm was selected is that the .30 Rem on which it is based has a slimmer case than the 7.62x39 on which the Grendel is based, so it is lighter and you can pack more of them into a magazine. All weapons involve compromises between conflicting desirables.
On the basis of the current information, I believe that the 6.8x43 would be a very worthwhile improvement over the 5.56x45, and would make the 7.62x51 unnecessary. Given that SOCOM is increasing in influence (I recall hearing recently that it was considered to be the right type of organisation to deal with modern conflicts, so may grow in size), I think it is likely that they will get the 6.8mm if they want it, and that it will then stand a chance of spreading over time into other forces.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony,
SOCOM has passed on the 6.8x43. They were told they would have to go it alone and they don't have the budget for that. I'll check with my source there and see if he's ready to go public and put his name to it. It's a shame because I think it has a lot of potential. SOCOM may have the ability to get whatever they want, but it's not feasible to change something as basic as rifle ammunition if you have to supply it yourself. Deployed SOCOM units with 6.8 SPC weapons would be out of luck on the battlefield if no other American unit was using the ammunition. It's a high demand item that would be SOCOM specific. The weight and cube of moving it in theater in sufficient quantity to support all of SOCOM at their far flung locations is something they can't handle alone. Things like rations, small arms ammunition and fuel are still mostly supplied by the big arrmy.
Jeff
SOCOM has passed on the 6.8x43. They were told they would have to go it alone and they don't have the budget for that. I'll check with my source there and see if he's ready to go public and put his name to it. It's a shame because I think it has a lot of potential. SOCOM may have the ability to get whatever they want, but it's not feasible to change something as basic as rifle ammunition if you have to supply it yourself. Deployed SOCOM units with 6.8 SPC weapons would be out of luck on the battlefield if no other American unit was using the ammunition. It's a high demand item that would be SOCOM specific. The weight and cube of moving it in theater in sufficient quantity to support all of SOCOM at their far flung locations is something they can't handle alone. Things like rations, small arms ammunition and fuel are still mostly supplied by the big arrmy.
Jeff
Badger Arms
Member
On this we are mose assuredly in agreement. The fact that Russia has gotten away with a bullet that's designed to tumble opens the door for us to do the same thing on their precedent.
It's a strange position that I take where I'm generally against the M4 Carbine / M855 combination but I own a 16" M4gery and am quite happy with it's reliability and wounding potential with good expanding bullets and my anal-retentive habit of cleaning my guns often whether or not they really need it. My concern is that those who actually have to engage in combat have what it takes to get the job done.
There is a bit of a 'cart before the horse' phenomenon going on here. Generally, a very small number of soldiers posess the power to release information. When one or more of these 'gatekeepers' decide it's worth publicizing, they get on the ball and do it. One should not make the assumption that we don't hear any chatter from official channels that there are no problems. In fact, it is the unofficial pathway that should concern us more than the party line. I'll cite the M16 as an example. The unofficial chatter at the time was mixed but most agreed this weapon was a piece of crap that jammed all the time. Don't blame the grunts, it was true from their point of view. Only when they went OUTSIDE official channels and jumped the chain of command did their problems get noticed and solved. In this case, it was a huge problem encompasing training, supply, powder, and the fact that the M16 was essentially a prototype that was produced without working the bugs out. Problems with the M4 and M16 are most noticeable when shooting the modern equivelant of the South Pacific Moro tribesmen... Drugged up Somali's, fanatical Arabs, and soon-to-be vodoo-frenzied Hatians. Do we want a round that will wound, kill, or stop? The M855 / M4 combination seem to me to effectively wound and less effectively kill or stop. Hit them with a .308 Hunting round and the'd be lucky to remain intact.
Badger,
How many rounds have you put through your M4gery without cleaning it? Contrary to popular myth they don't requre a sterile battlefield. I agree that you're being a lttle anal retentive. Last August I took my Colt R6920 LE carbine to Pat rogers' course in Lebanon Indiana. I fired approx 1000 rounds through it in 3 days. I had one malfunction I didn't deliberately indice for training purposes. A squibb load in Federal XM193. The rifle was dirty when I started the course, never did anymore maintenance on it during the course except shoot some CLP in it at noon on the second day. Yes, it was pretty filthy at the end of the course, but I would bet that I could have fired a few thousand more rounds before it would have carboned up to the point of malfunctioning. I agree that there is better ammo out there for social purposes. But I don't feel inadequately armed with either M193 or M855.
The Army has changed a lot since the bad old days of fielding the M16. As a matter of fact you can thank the internet for a lot of the changes in the way information is disseminated. The good people at the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Ft. Leavenworth and the combat development sections in all of the service schools are right behind our soldiers. They send teams to the units almost as soon as they get out of combat. These teams go in with checklists of questions and interview everyone from riflemen to commanders. And those reports are available online within days. They aren't edited to make sure they toe the party line. The chips fall where they may. If something isn't working we hear about it. If we need to change the we do something, we hear about that. M855 ammo lethality is not an issue. M4 reliability is not an issue. I can point you to a news article about the incident that got the guys in 5th SF looking at alternate calibers.
The Moro tribesman story is another military urban legend. While the .45 long colt is a much better stopper then the old .38, it was a shortage of handguns that got the old SAA's out of storage and the barrels bobbed off, not complaints that the .38s were ineffective. It does make a good story though. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you that we'd have no problems with .308 hunting rounds. People are terribly hard to stop. When I have time, I think I'll go through my modest library and post documented failures of just about every small arms round ever used. I think that we worry too much about mythical one shot stops and other nonsense. You shoot the enemy until he's down and then you double tap in the head when you pass the body as you reach the limit of advance on the OBJ. It's been necessary to fight that way since we started using firearms and it probably always will be.
Jeff
How many rounds have you put through your M4gery without cleaning it? Contrary to popular myth they don't requre a sterile battlefield. I agree that you're being a lttle anal retentive. Last August I took my Colt R6920 LE carbine to Pat rogers' course in Lebanon Indiana. I fired approx 1000 rounds through it in 3 days. I had one malfunction I didn't deliberately indice for training purposes. A squibb load in Federal XM193. The rifle was dirty when I started the course, never did anymore maintenance on it during the course except shoot some CLP in it at noon on the second day. Yes, it was pretty filthy at the end of the course, but I would bet that I could have fired a few thousand more rounds before it would have carboned up to the point of malfunctioning. I agree that there is better ammo out there for social purposes. But I don't feel inadequately armed with either M193 or M855.
The Army has changed a lot since the bad old days of fielding the M16. As a matter of fact you can thank the internet for a lot of the changes in the way information is disseminated. The good people at the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Ft. Leavenworth and the combat development sections in all of the service schools are right behind our soldiers. They send teams to the units almost as soon as they get out of combat. These teams go in with checklists of questions and interview everyone from riflemen to commanders. And those reports are available online within days. They aren't edited to make sure they toe the party line. The chips fall where they may. If something isn't working we hear about it. If we need to change the we do something, we hear about that. M855 ammo lethality is not an issue. M4 reliability is not an issue. I can point you to a news article about the incident that got the guys in 5th SF looking at alternate calibers.
The Moro tribesman story is another military urban legend. While the .45 long colt is a much better stopper then the old .38, it was a shortage of handguns that got the old SAA's out of storage and the barrels bobbed off, not complaints that the .38s were ineffective. It does make a good story though
. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you that we'd have no problems with .308 hunting rounds. People are terribly hard to stop. When I have time, I think I'll go through my modest library and post documented failures of just about every small arms round ever used. I think that we worry too much about mythical one shot stops and other nonsense. You shoot the enemy until he's down and then you double tap in the head when you pass the body as you reach the limit of advance on the OBJ. It's been necessary to fight that way since we started using firearms and it probably always will be.Jeff
- Status
