Posted on 05/22/2022 5:37:36 PM PDT by max americana
Doesn’t it? The only thing I can think of offhand is they are loaded to outrageous pressures and this is supposed to strengthen the head. Absurd in my opinion.
Any reason military doesn’t use a steel case on their ammo?
It’s not like they reload. Or do they? I would think picking up all the brass on the ranges and sending them back to the armory would save some money.
The link below is a report which will answer your question. It's a long read but will convince you to never use steel case ammo.
Yes. Someone is nuts.
Army ammo will be made at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Missouri in a new facility.
Hi.
I read the thread (my bad) and didn’t see if the weapon had a lug/mount for a bayonet.
5.56mm
I watched the Task and Purpose video, and they said it doesnt come with one.
Barrel erosion was the main concern with steel cased ammo. Other than short stroking issues with the Tula ammo which was blamed on propellent.
Barrel erosion was caused by projectile, not case.
After reading everything I think the cost/benefit of the steel cased ammo was at least even, if not greater than brass.
I believe, based on the test, that properly loaded steel cased ammo from one of our ammo plants would be equal to, or extremely close to brass.
And for plinking in my AR’s the cost outweighs, by a long shot, any rare, very rare, malfunctions.
3 years later, and we’re still talking about it.
—
Here’s my take.
The M16 did have some early growing pains.
But it was a new concept (small caliber / high velocity), cast aluminum upper and lower receiver. Not something done before the M16.
It’s a smaller and lighter weapon that shoots really flat, has little recoil, allows for the carry of a lot of ammo, and if you hit a human with the right ammo, it makes really nasty injuries.
That said, I believe our inventory of this family of weapons has aged, there are newer materials yet, body armor is proliferating, and today the optics and accessories are the critical path, the weapon should be designed around their use.
It would be interesting to know what the average age of the current M16 in inventory is?
—
Are there really revolutionary ideas that are functional (affordable, reliable) that provide a huge advantage compared to an M16?
No.
What we’re looking at are evolutionary improvements in design and maybe the incorporation of some new material to shave a little weight off, as well as introducing a new caliber more suited for dealing with capable body armor that will stop a 80 ball round.
—
It really boils down to either an HK416, M5/7 or SCAR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_HK416 (8.0)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_rifle (8.38)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR (7.9)
You cannot go wrong with any of them.
They are all improvements over the M16 family in terms of design.
They are all about the same weight, accurate and effective to the same range, reliable, easy to use, easy to clean, ambidextrous.
The 416 offers the advantage that all personnel trained on the M16/4 have a weapon that is near identical while still being more reliable and more accurate.
It has been around the longest and has been fielded, tried and tested the most of any of these weapons. I would lean towards the HK416 if I were a decision maker.
The M7 and the SCAR also have their “marginal” advantages.
They are all great weapons.
The US Army needs to make a decision and then move on that, not this slow drip, change its mind, another slow drip, while the bulk of the forces use a weapon their parents and soon grandparents (1964) may have used and is likely long past it’s intended life, has a hard time with body armor, could be lighter, and was never the most reliable weapon.
—
I would investigate if scandium alloys can be incorporated (will it pose an oxidation and corrosion risk, will it cause for cracks or mechanical failure prematurely, etc). Something like the incorporation of scandium allows (if feasible) a weight saving of as much as 20%. On the barrel I would see about using titanium, which would provide as much as 40% weight savings. irony, we use titanium barrels on a M2 Brad where weight isn’t that big of a factor, but then cheap out on an individual combat weapon that is carried and where every pound does make a difference. I would focus on weight savings using new materials, the caliber, and a slight improvement in design for reliability, as this is where I believe we can make some performance improvements.
As to the 6.8mm. The general trend has been that the bad guys are also using more and better body armor. We need something which can deal with this. Retire 5.56 and 7.62, transition all systems in these sizes to 6.8mm and use a round that while it might not as massively expand over short distance, offers excellent penetration of body armor.
But I’ve been out of the game and retired a while, my knowledge is limited and maybe I’m just dreaming things up and talking from my a$$.
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.