Whatever is chosen, lube it with bacon grease and make sure the world knows it.
.270 is a fine round...however, if ya like it...look at the .280. Its even better.
My money goes for the .308 or the '06.
That's basically the antiquated French 7.5mm MAS loaded with modern propellant. We'd need an entirely new rifle system that would suspiciously end up looking just like our old rifle system that was uniformly abandoned by every participating NATO member.
I've heard this baloney before. The modern trend for accuracy is a shorter and wider case that provides for a fast flame wall using a 6.5mm projectile. We already have better (and equally archaic) 7mm cartridges than what the author proposes, and if you're going to base it on the .308 Winchester case, stop screwing around and just go with the existing 7.62 NATO round so we can all pretend it's 1956 again.
What? We're going to bring back FALs and M14s? I have serious reservations about both designs. Ask Eaker to show you pics of his old M1A.
What's needed is something along the lines of the Steyr AUG-A2 in 6.5mm PPC with an updated accurized trigger system. End of discussion.
What caliber were you using? .308? 30-06? 300 mag?
I'm thinking it was a 30-06. The .308 was brought out to provide a shorter throw in the action which reduced the weight, but 30-06 equivalent ballistics are not possible with IMR 4064, due to the smaller powder capacity of the .308.
The .308's ballistics required the use of the more dense filling made possible by using the ball powders, which can be a little tricky up in the maximun load range.
Well, the projectile weight is a more or less given, out of modern propellants one have already squeezed about everything possible, thus the only place to look at to get lighter rounds for carry purposes would be the caseless ammo. And these developments are in the experimental stage.
Thanks for posting this!
I believe the ability for a soldier to be able to carry about three times as much ammo was a major factor also.
I am a Nam Special Forces veteran, and I have lugged both the M-14 and the M-16 many miles with ammo and a full combat pack. There are advantages with the M-14, however lots of ammo is extremely important, and when in the brush that is a MAJOR problem with the 7.62. I will take the M-16 any day of the week over the M-14.
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...
Later read.
(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.)