I understand that IWTSD has now shared ballistic testing results of the 6.5 mm LICC + EPR bullet with the US Army / NGSW team. Level IV armour defeat appears to be comparable, but I do not know what is the maximum range this has been achieved. (Maybe EMERIC can tell us based on his ballistic expertise.)  My US source tells me that 6.5 mm LICC has been hugely helpful to the NGSW team as it validates a number of ECPs for 6.8x51 mm NGSW.

I shouldn't speculate, but I sense we may see a revised NGSW specification which could even include a calibre reduction from 6.8 mm to 6.5 mm. I note, based on the latest public information on NGSW, that four ammo natures have been approved for further development. The armour defeat requirement is delivered by Special Purpose round but the main focus is now the GP round. Obviously, this has less power. So we are seeing the power reduced to make the overall specification more sensible in terms of weapon life / barrel wear and recoil. 

GATNERD was absolutely right when he said that if 6.5x43 mm LICC been available before 6.8x51 mm was downselected, it would have been a very different story. As things stand, I see the two standards converging, especially as SIG has now tested its hybrid  6.5 mm Creedmoor with an EPR bullet.  

Guardsman26 said:

The armour defeat requirement is delivered by Special Purpose round but the main focus is now the GP round. Obviously, this has less power.

How is it obvious that the GP round has less power than the SP round?

And BTW, the image that you posted is much too small to be readable.  

Guardsman26 said:

The armour defeat requirement is delivered by Special Purpose round but the main focus is now the GP round. Obviously, this has less power. So we are seeing the power reduced to make the overall specification more sensible in terms of weapon life / barrel wear and recoil. 

Is there a plan with the 6.8x51 to load the GP ammo to a lower pressure than the SP round?

Do you have any info on the overall length of the 6.5x43?  Would there really be much of of a difference between it and a 6.5 Creedmoor using the same case technology?

Guardsman26 said:

I understand that IWTSD has now shared ballistic testing results of the 6.5 mm LICC + EPR bullet with the US Army / NGSW team. Level IV armour defeat appears to be comparable, 

Comparable, as in zero penetration of Level IV for either round? 

We're seeing M80A1 EPR from the more powerful 7.62x51 and even loaded onto .300 Win Mag stopped by Level IV plates. In general the EPR with its shorter steel penetrator seems inferior penetration wise to the .30-06 M2AP projectile, which itself is stopped cold by Level IV. 

Here is M80A1 EPR @ 3400fps being stopped at 40' by Level IV

YouTube

300 Winchester Magnum Vs Level IV Engarde Body Armor!

Social Media Links:Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/buffmanrangeFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/BuffmanVids/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/buffmanra...

I don't see how .264 LICC would have any ability to defeat IV with a steel penetrator, and even the high pressure 6.8x51 seems dubious with steel given .300 win mag steel core is usually stopped. 

...

Or is it that .264 LICC Tungsten is showing adequate performance against Level IV? 

...

For the image you shared earlier, would it be possible for you to re-upload it via imgBB? This will provide a larger, easier to read image. Thanks.

https://imgbb.com/

I am not able to upload a high resolution version of that image. Basically it is the US Army's publicly released document showing budget authorisation to purchase test quantities of four NGSW ammunition types dated March 2023. These are GP, Training, SP, and Blank. (No Tracer yet). 

The SP version of NGWS does not penetrate Level IV body armour at 600 metres. I don't think it does it even at 400 metres. They will need to rethink this. That's why they are focusing on the GP loading. This uses an EPR bullet. 

The 6.5 mm LICC is achieving similar MV and performance to the 6.8 mm NGSW round, the LICC has less weight (16 grams versus 22 grams), reduced chamber pressure, reduced recoil, and a smaller form factor.

The plan for NGSW was always to achieve Level IV defeat with a steel penetrator. 

Guardsman26 said:

The 6.5 mm LICC is achieving similar MV and performance to the 6.8 mm NGSW round, the LICC has less weight (16 grams versus 22 grams), reduced chamber pressure, reduced recoil, and a smaller form factor.

Absolutely, it's a much more practical cartridge - so long as the armor penetration requirement is abandoned or greatly curtailed. 

It's not impossible that either 6.5/.264 LICC or 6.8 NGSW could defeat Level IV with a steel penetrator, it just seems very improbable based on open source testing we've seen now for years done by Buffman against a dozen + different plate designs. 

...

Of course the issue becomes muddied if armor penetration is abandoned.

-For AP, 6.8 NGSW makes more sense because of its greater power

-For GP EPR, 6.5/.264 makes much more sense 

-But if AP is abandoned, does a new cartridge make sense, vs just leveraging thin wall steel lightweight cases in 5.56 and 7.62 and buying some EVOLYS to lighten the LMG make more sense?

-And if a new cartridge is deemed wise, and AP is no longer a requirement, is .264 LICC still the best choice? And is a 'GPC' 1 caliber solution vs an optimized 2 caliber solution really preferable? 

Guardsman26 said:

I am not able to upload a high resolution version of that image. Basically it is the US Army's publicly released document showing budget authorisation to purchase test quantities of four NGSW ammunition types dated March 2023. These are GP, Training, SP, and Blank. (No Tracer yet). 

Here is the source document (p 63, which is p 79 of the actual PDF):

https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/Documents/BudgetMaterial/2023/Base%20Budget/Procurement/AMMO_ARMY.pdf

what are the details of the 6.5LICC?   muzzle energy? bullet weight?  how can it only weigh 16 grams?

gatnerd said:

But if AP is abandoned, does a new cartridge make sense, vs just leveraging thin wall steel lightweight cases in 5.56 and 7.62 and buying some EVOLYS to lighten the LMG make more sense?

I think that would depend on whether 5.56 and 7.62 performance is considered good enough and all that's wanted is to reduce ammo weight, vs whether better performance with reduced ammo weight is desired.

gatnerd said:

And if a new cartridge is deemed wise, and AP is no longer a requirement, is .264 LICC still the best choice? And is a 'GPC' 1 caliber solution vs an optimized 2 caliber solution really preferable?

Again, it depends.  At the squad level, a one caliber solution may be preferable, if the cartridge delivers acceptable performance in the rifle, the DMR (if used) and the SAW.

IMO, if AP is no longer a requirement, the .264 LICC is not the best choice due to its size.  Scale it down to .23 caliber, and it would fit a smaller Six8-size rifle and 30-rd mag.