Skip to comments.Marines Working with the Army on 5.56mm Rifle Round Replacement
Posted on 04/12/2018 6:35:08 PM PDT by MtnClimber
click here to read article
How many weapons in the current inventory have been used since the beginning of the WOT? Would it be cheaper to refurbish those older M4’s and SAW’s and convert them at the same time, or just build replacements in a 6.5 because the old weapons are too worn out?
Traditional bullet cartridges have a bullet seated roughly halfway inside a brass shell casing, with gunpowder inside the casing. By contrast, the new rifle uses a 6.5-millimeter polymer-cased telescoped bullet. Telescoped rounds feature a bullet completely encased in a polymer shell, like a shotgun, with gunpowder surrounding the bullet in the shell.
Textron claims the new 6.5-millimeter round has 300 percent more energy than the standard U.S. Army bullet, the M855A1.
If they went with a .243 all they would have to do is switch barrels on a 7.62.
And use some of the newer propellants to achieve higher velocity
Been thinking the same thing.
Wanna buy my Wazer Wifle?
Or they could have more PT and make the troops strong enough to carry 7.62 again.
“Heck, I have tried to find the “one gun” solution all my life, and I can’t do it even with my limited set of parameters.”
I have put thought and practice into the 1-gun solution as well. So much so that the criteria has boiled down to the an old west approach. The mission statement would reflect that like the “old west constraint” of 1 rifle, 1 pistol, 1 shotgun, plus the added carriage requirement of the trio being close at hand at all times. Boil it all down, distill it and abra-cadabrah - the magic trio would reveal itself... bottom line - it didn’t happen, unless the equation included geographical and situational constraints as well.
You can buy one on eBay.
I’m with you. I don’t believe there a 1 and done solution when it comes to rifle calibers, but we can get close. In Vietnam I carried the standard M-16, lightweight, fast and could carry allot of ammo without having to carry allot of weight. It worked very well for the conditions and terrain we were in.
For the last 20 years I’ve been doing deer and hog hunts for Vets here on the ranch and like any other hunt the campfire conversation can get deep. These boys were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan where conditions and terrain were much different. The distance at which these battles took place was extended and instead of having to shoot through elephant grass and dense foliage they spent a majority of their time trying to shoot through doors windows and walls. Allot of complaints about the 5.56’s inability to penetrate even the simplest of dirt/adobe style walls. The older M-14 was brought into play with units far more than I was aware of but that required a much heavier, longer weapon and limiting the amount of ammo. The 7.62 had the brute power to punch holes through walls.
The general agreement by most was a rifle built off the AR-15 style rifle but In a larger caliber that could still stay in the Mag restrictions of the AR-15 design thus keep overall size and weight down. The 6.5 Grendel has been brought up many times, too many to ignore. The 120 grain FMJBT gives you 2700 fps with almost 2,000 ft-lbs of energy. Now that’s for a 24 inch barrel and these numbers will change with reduced barrel lengths. When we compare it to the 5.56x45 NATO we see a 62 grain FMJBT at 2830 ft/s with 1,325 ft-lbs from a 20 inch barrel. The 5,56 gives up allot of horsepower to the Grendel. The only downsize from this conversion is a lower Mag capacity and about a 30 percent increase in felt recoil. This leaves them with a weapon far superior in both downrange ballistic’s and enough energy to punch through most walls.
I have been hunting for several years using the 6.5x47 Lapua out of my Rem700.
So I picked the 6.5Grendel for my first AR. I chose the 24in barrel. I have been using 130gr Bergers in my Lapua and will be using the same bullet weight in the Grendel.
I do not feel that the somewhat lower velocity from the Grendel will be an issue for hunting.
I see that the Army has been experimenting with the 6.5USA. It appears to be a knockoff of the Lapua.
The Creedmor also gives you more distance than the M-4.
Armalite used the DI gas system design on the AR-10 first, with few changes made when scaling it down to the 5.56. Remember that only a small portion of the combustion gases are diverted to operate the action; only so much is going to flow through that drilled gas port - barrel length probably has a bigger impact on it than case capacity.
Naturally, gunpowder formulation *is* something that designers must be careful with when dealing with the DI design.
Thanks for answering my question.
“Weight limits what the soldiers can carry”
Yes it does, but anyone who has observed how the “Christmas Tree” effect comes into play with Infantry understands that statement is kind of a red herring. 30-06 will reach out and touch someone, and turns cover into concealment. And it’s certainly not an “either or” prospect, I wish .gov organizations would get beyond that.
You mis-spelled .357/.38
You are thinking of soldiers actually carefully aiming their shots. During battle few actually aim. It’s more about the volume of fire than aimed shots.
“You mis-spelled .357/.38”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.