Posted on 01/04/2006 11:14:38 PM PST by ghostcat
Doesn't that argue for a "squad-level baggage train" rather than lightening up the round?
The Japanese used bicycles -- although that choice restricted them to jungle trails, they were still able to pack significant quantities of baggage quickly enough constantly to flank British forces in Malaya. The VC and NVA also used bicycles extensively as a kind of jungle suitcase-with-casters. Took a hell of a load off their guys.
Also, I read that Charlie typically carried much less ammo than we did -- maybe 60-120 rounds of 7.62x39. That true, in your experience? Any wisdom to be had there, about packing light?
Unless we come up with a new TYPE of round, such as "Metal Storm", electrical fired or caseless ammo, I just don't see the need.
We've known how to do that for a good portion of the 20th century. The classic method is to mix the cordite a bit rich and cut it with ammonium nitrate or similar non-mineral oxidizers. If I am not mistaken, the Germans invented these types of smokeless powders, and they were used briefly in the US.
Unfortunately, they have significant disadvantages. First, they tend to have far more problems with water absorption and corrosion than standard smokeless powders, which creates all sorts of logistical issues. Second, IIRC this reduces the energy of the propellant and velocity matters for tank gunners. On the upside it burns really clean, as you noticed.
That actually sounds like an argument for the 6.5mm. A standard .308 can launch a ~140gr 6.5mm lead pencil at around 3000 fps, and it will stay supersonic well past 1000 meters. It also has dropped more elephants in Africa than anyone can remember, due to its ridiculous penetration profile on modest brass.
Americans are not terribly familiar with the 6.5mm, but Europeans continue to use it as the workhorse round as they have for over a century. Given that this is for military applications, you could probably downsize the brass and bullet a bit to save some size and weight as well as making it amenable to auto fire.
However I think the argument is not about the 5.56 vs 7.62, I think the idea here is to significantly increase terminal performance without significantly reducing the number of rounds. That is why I am intrigued with what the military is purportedly looking at in a variation of the 6.5 ppc. Higher weight than the 5.56, but not in the range of the 7.62. Effective range,and terminal performance more along the lines of the 7.62.
As for the M-16, I believe it is a well designed, finely crafted tool. I do have one basic problem with its design, in particular the fact that the gas tube is constantly dumping heat and gunk back into the most sensitive part of the rifle. I understand why Stoner chose to do this. to reduce the overall weight of the rifle (a hollow tube weighs considerably less than a solid steel operating rod). A more traditional design using perhaps titanium for the operating rod to bring the weight close to the M-16 gas system is in my opinion a better approach. I am fond of the M-14 and were I to need to go into battle with it I would not feel shortchanged. I do however realize it is not the optimum choice for our forces today.
This is what the 6.5ppc round does. As for use in auto fire the way the firearm is designed has more to do with its apparent recoil characteristics than the relatively small differences in projectile weight. For example the U.S. is testing a fully auto 12ga shotgun that can be fired with ease by even petite women.
I've shot the M1, M14 & M16. Personally, I liked the M79 40mm 'blooper' :-)
Seriously, for combat soldiers, away from easy resupply, lethality, weight and quantity of ammo carried are very important.
The 5.56mm allows max ammo quantity, minimum weight & so-so long distance effectiveness and lethality.
Just no free lunch. Personally, I preferred the M14....but in a firefight, on patrol, 10 miles from nearest resupply? The extra ammo I could carry with a M16 would shape my decision.
That said, the M16/5.56mm is a jungle gun/round. For open desert, go the .30 cal round of the M14.
If full auto is a problem then they should think about going to a 2 or 3 round burst capability. This cuts down on the recoil AND the heat that is generated in full auto. Soldiers don't need to rip off 30 rounds without stopping. 3 round bursts allow better control and give plenty of firepower to the individual.
Bump for later...
When I lived in Wyoming, I chose a .270 for my big game rifle--flat and fast.
Later read.
276 Pederson.
The Pederson device was a unit that made the Springfield bolt action rifle into a semi-auto firing this round.
I hear all of this talk, and it sounds like individuals who bench shoot targets every Saturday or go hunting for big game a few times each year. There is all the difference in the world between that and combat. The M-14 is okay if you are close to an ammo bunker, but outside of that I would still take an M-16.
(2) Is the complete round suitable for self-loading rifles (in overall length)?
(3) Is the projectile heavy enough to deliver sufficient knock down power (Kinetic Energy) at all ranges out to 400 yards?
(4) Will the trajectory of the projectile be relatively flat when compared with other suitable ammunition?
(5) Is a complete round (i.e. cartridge case + projectile + powder + primer) light enough to allow a soldier to carry a minimum of 300 rounds on his person?
(6) Will the selected calibre and projectile be accurate enough to shoot groups of 5 inches/125mm or less at the stipulated minimum range? (The rifle being used will be a factor here.)
(7) Will the selected calibre and projectile be able to attain velocities of at least 3000 FPS from a self loading service rifle?
Small point, if the cartridge can accomplish 1 thru 6, why is 7 relavent?
Also, isn't this sort of an apples and oranges comparison? The 30.06 and 7.62 Nato are rifle rounds. The 5.56 Nato and the 7.62x39 are assult rifle rounds intended to fill the gap between pistol (SMG) rounds and rifle (BAR) rounds. (I wish the author had included the 7.62x39 in his charts.)
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.