Shooters Forum banner
21 - 40 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 ·
Hornady has a 145 gr ELDX with a ballistic coefficient of 0.536. If the Army has something like that with a steel penetrator tip, it might serve as an economical general purpose bullet. I doubt (don’t know) if that would go through body armor.

Nosler has an Accubond Long Range 150gr bullet with a 0.625 ballistic coefficient, which indicates the long range potential of a .277.

In the original Army specification for the contract competition, they wanted the competitors to develop a cartridge that would use two .277 bullets (135gr and 140gr) which had already been designed at Picatinny Arsenal. At least one of these is presumably something special regarding ability to penetrate body armor. A bullet could be built with a tungsten core, as DarkLord has mentioned, but I think a bullet so expensive might be reserved as a long range penetrator used against fuel and ammunition trucks, rocket launching trucks, radar trucks, aircraft on the ground, etc.. Perhaps a steel penetrator tip with copper clad steel jacket and lead core would serve to deal with body armor, and not break the taxpayers bank. This is just my uninformed speculation. Tdoyka mentioned the black tipped armor piercing, steel core .30-06 bullet used in WW2 (frequently in the BAR). A copper clad steel core bullet would be cheap and probably effective at short to medium range. I think a steel core AP bullet was also loaded in some 7.62 x 51 NATO rounds that would penetrate 1” of steel.

If this cartridge is adopted, several loads will probably be developed, including cheap training rounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
The bummer part...the bullet is secret at this point; they're not talking. So we can only speculate. It will likely be a year or two (or more) before we see their AP in the wild. Chances are it will be squirreled away until they really need it, then the cat will be out of the bag.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
Cheap body armor is showing up all over the globe. You can get a plate carrier for $179 t hat will stop a .308 AP. You really don't want to be behind the curve on such things. The fact that you personally didn't wear it, or that you rarely encountered it is anecdotal data from ONE guy. The army leadership is concerned.

I see ZERO evidence for any of your thoughts. The army is concerned about the threat, they are the experts on what the army needs, not us. They feel its a problem, and they're one of the only military organizations that is addressing the issue.

Just don't understand why gun people are so conspiratorial.
heck, i'm stating this as a fact that the Army believes, weapon beats armor every time. it may take you a little bit of time, but weapon beats armor. would i have worn it? yes, i would have, but Kevlar plates weren't out yet. i did wear a Kelvar helmet, tho i miss shaving in my steel pot and cooking eggs and a whole bunch of other stuff.

i ain't conspiratorial, i tell all the egg heads have at it, you'll never know if you don't try.

the $20 million or so is like pocket change to the gummint. as an aside, i don't like the 5.56x45, i find the 7.62x39 and esp 7.62x51 superior. but this is one guy's opinion. on body armor, 5.7x27 or 4.6x30 will penetrate it. i believe its 200 meters and under can go through NATO CRISAT or a Level IIIA Kevlar vest? but i am only a conspiratorial member, so........


.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Read about the problems with the M16 early on in Vietnam because of the wrong type powder and the bean counters not wanting to splurge for chrome lined chambers/barrels. Then maybe you will understand why we have little faith in the “system”.
 

·
The Shadow (Moderator)
Joined
·
10,209 Posts
what's the difference between a conspiracy theory and reality
Those who "Trust the science", and those who actually read scientific papers. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pudfark

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
38,320 Posts
Yes, sadly ironic that we've more or less circled back around to 7x57 ballistics, oh, only 120-something years after discovering how (painfully) effective it was in the Spanish-American war :rolleyes:

The Brits learned the same hard lesson in the Boer war, and were almost as stubbon as us.

"Not Invented Here" syndrome is alive and well, all over the globe. Wasn't there a theory floating around that Winchester introduced the .270, after investing some time and money in an experimental 6.8mm cartridge for the Chinese government, that never came to pass and they were stuck with tools / equipment / bullets that they had no other use for?

I guess it takes at least a hundred years to 'forget' that someone else, somewhere else, already invented what you need!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
What if NATO had adopted the 7 x 57 Mauser in the FN FAL? With the FN’s adjustable gas block, NATO could have loaded a moderately powered/light recoiling standard load, AND a high pressure/high velocity/armor piercing load. I think the adjustable gas block had 14 settings, 7 of which were numbered. An appropriate setting could have been marked AP, for the high pressure armor piercing load. Another could have been marked S for the standard low recoil load, with plenty of adjustments left for various states of fouling/lubrication/cold weather conditions.

The FN could have been upgraded in the 1980s with a Picatinny rail upper receiver, and a better trigger. We could have had a made in USA version.

The only bolt action rifles I have had in short actions that I have really liked have been .22-250s. I used to load a 6mm Remington for a nephew, and I liked it better than my .243. At one time, I thought a .257 Robert’s would have been a better coyote rifle than my .243. Hornady had to nip and tuck the 6.5 Creedmoor case to get it to fit in a short action, and people load it hot to get the velocity they want. I know many people like their .308s, but if Winchester had necked down the 8mm Mauser to .30 caliber and called it .308 Winchester—they would like it just a little bit more. I have an AR 10 in .308 that I like, but I would like it more if it was a .308 Winchester/Mauser.

If the .277 Sig case was about 2/10ths of an inch longer (like the 7mm Mauser), the Army would be claiming 3300 fps from an 80,000 psi load in a 20 inch barrel, and we would not be contemplating tungsten or depleted uranium bullets to pierce Chinese body armor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
No claim of expertise in this field here...

But isn't the majority of small arms engagement at much closer range than 600m these days?? Yeah there are snipers, but it seems that alot of the work done by our boys in recent decades has been close quarters, house to house type stuff. Gunships and other air support for longer range.

Again, I'm no expert in this stuff, but I did read Chris Kyle's and Marcus Lutrell's books...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
This cartridge seems like complete overkill to me for a standard infantry rifle rnd. It will require a heavy AR-10 size chassis ( weight ) and the heavy ammo to go along with it. The only advantage I see with it is replacing the M-240, and M-249 with one weapon as an S.A.W.

To stay within an M-4 configuration, and gain some close range power, I think adopting a cartridge similar to the 6.5 grendel would have been a more logical choice.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
789 Posts
I believe the 'modern battlefield' theories are currently being put to test in the world right now. Information/propaganda is slow coming to the public. Those in the military, I hope have their eyes wide open and their ears close to the ground. Things seem to be changing radically? Weapons and tactics should be critically reviewed and hopefully no rush to judgement/decision, until the facts are in.
That's the last of my two cents worth or opinion on this thread. I look forward to reading any additional comments here.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
38,320 Posts
Note, a common theme in military history, is developing weapons for the next war that would have been really useful in the previous one..... which sometimes works out well, and sometimes not. Time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
we have some great cartridges in the ar-15, like 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 Wolverine, 6.8 SPC, heck i even go with the 6 ARC (didn't the gummint already had this?)....but the gummint says ar-10 in 6.8x51(277 Fury).

i'm going from memory(don't trust it. i don't!!!), the gummint wants to have a heavier platform, 20 - 25 rnds per magazine, heavier cartridge, semi to full auto, 2 piece cartridge body, it "kicks" the bejeezus out of ya. this is all for the 3000fps+ and it penetrates body armor? ahhhhhhhhh...yeah, go ahead and buy it. and find out that Army/Marines qualification scores go down.

this is just me, but wouldn't the gummint do a 2 piece case in 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC? then they could do ar15 type weapon with 80,000 psi or CUP or whatever. DARPA, i'm talking to you.

i like the idea of 6.8x51 for the heavy machine gun, it could take the 7.62x51 off the map and the 5.56 MG(m240 and 249) and throw them away.

hmmm....maybe i don't want 6.8x51. 80,000psi is alot pressure and can it take it? the barrel life, i mean. i have never done it, but the m60 with 7.62x51 could heat the barrel red hot. thats why we trained with 6 - 9 rounds (a short burst). i think it somewhere around 250 rounds that you had to change the barrel? but we never did, we go 750 - 1000 rounds before we changed the barrel (makes you glad to use and carry an asbestos gloves ;) ), but that was with short bursts. a long burst was really, really frowned on by our sergeants.:eek::rolleyes::ROFLMAO: not that i did it or anything...............

oh well, NMP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Actual soldiers have been studying what they need performance wise for over a decade. Yet you guys take one glance and say...Well this, or that would be better...

I'm glad THEY are making the decisions based on establishing performance criteria that most all professional soldiers agreed upon, and then developed and tested a cartridge, and weapon system to meet that need.

But yeah, we should totally go with your 6.5 Grendel idea.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,281 Posts
I'm glad THEY are making the decisions based on establishing performance criteria that most all professional soldiers agreed upon .
Like the Sherman tank?

Sorry, a good school buddy's dad was caught in one and survived, but just barely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkLord

·
Registered
Joined
·
264 Posts
Like the Sherman tank?

Sorry, a good school buddy's dad was caught in one and survived, but just barely.
Learn more about the Sherman tank, it was one of the best in the war. It was a medium tank, and for a medium tank it was pretty much the best.
Tigers and Panthers were neat, when they worked. As much as 30% of them couldn't even make it to the dance. The Sherman was mechanically the most reliable tank in the world, and one of the few tanks in the world that you could rebuild in the field. If you blow a transmission in pretty much ANY German tank, it has to go back to the factory. They didn't have full parts-interchangeability so only the factory could fit a new transmission. On a Sherman, it was a 4 hour job in the field.
And that Tiger tank couldn't cross about 70% of the bridges in Western Europe, while the Sherman could cross nearly 90% of the bridges...again, medium tank.
And while a small number of German tanks had a small edge in firepower and armor, it was never enough to change the outcome of a battle. There wasn't a General in WW2 who would take any tank over the Sherman when you weigh it all out. Once the Brits got Sherman's, they fell in love with them...couldn't get enough of them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
789 Posts
It's been a little of my experience that trigger pullers aren't polled by the higher ups on their opinions/experiences. Prolly why we ain't heard about all the difficulty they've had killing the enemy for the last thirty years? I believe it was a lowly 5.56 that killed Bin Laden?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,251 Posts
2 to the chest, 1 to the head will make your target dead.

British Sherman tank crews called it the Ronson lighter. "lights the first time. every time!!!"

Sherman tanks were mass produced. in a cargo ship, you could fit 2 Shermans' against 1 heavy tank.we did quantity over quality. in theory, a Sherman tank could not fight a tank battle. instead, they were infantry support vehicles. Shermans would let a tank destroyer battalion (m10 and m36) or a true heavy tank (later in WW2) m26 Pershing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pudfark

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Discussion Starter · #40 ·
RED-RIDE 350r, you are correct. Much of the combat in recent decades has been at close quarters. The Sturmgewehr 44 and AK 47 and M4 and M249 SAW have all been effective at close quarters. The use of light weight 5.56mm by US armed forces has allowed them to expend overwhelming amounts of ammunition at close range. We would be giving up something by switching to an ammunition type that weighs 2.5 times as much as 5.56. This is where we need the advice of veterans.

In a previous thread discussing the .277 Sig, “Operating Pressures of Modern Bolt Actions,” member rickyerby said, “ The average squad will have reduced ammo and fire power and more weight. We have based this decision on some pie in the sky 800 meter scenario and surrendered the 0–200 meter battle space that we have dominated. Also far more people are killed in that area than at long range. I base this on my military experience and time in Iraq as a contractor.“

from a 2008 thread, “US Army to continue cartridge search,“ member Chucknbach wrote: “If I was still a SAW gunner in the army I’d be praying to keep it the same. At a 1000 rounds a minute you need to pack a lot of ammo….I’ve read a few of these arguments on having bigger rounds it’s always brought up about knockdown power and one shot one kill theories all fine and dandy arguments. What it doesn’t take into account is suppressive fire. In my training you were doing one of two things advancing or retreating both of which require a lot of rounds to be fired to keep their heads down so your buddy doesn’t get shot while advancing or retreating….”

The question is, what will the battlefields of the future be like? If the Communist Chinese are ever the adversary, their soldiers will be wearing modern body armor and they will be supported by modern naval and air forces. They will have drones and rocket artillery and some satellite surveillance. I think our Army leaders have thought carefully about all this. If the Army leaders think it is important that our soldiers have the ability to overcome an enemy wearing body armor, then we should support our troops with the best equipment possible. I don’t think that means we have to scrap the short range weapons.

Something not mentioned yet are the sighting systems. The Army has been issuing optical sights for years, and in recent years a 1 x 6 power scope has been supplied for the M4. This year a contract was given to Vortex to supply a 1 x 8 scope (made in USA) with an electronic module piggybacked onto it. This module has a laser rangefinder, ballistic calculator interfaced into the reticle, corrected for temperature and barometric pressure, and the ability to calculate trajectory for different ammunition types. I think the contract is for 250,000 scopes over 10 years, and I think they are destined for the M5 rifles and M250 machine guns. Imagine a machine gun burst, precision on target first time. I think the Army is trying to give our troops the equipment they need.

Youtube video: by Vortex Nation episode 220;
Army selects Vortex for Next Generation Squad Weapon
 
21 - 40 of 96 Posts
Top