stancrist said...

 

NathanielF said...

Yeah, though the biggest factor here is additional magazine weight. One of the issues I have with Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles is that the .264 USA AR-12 featured in it appears to just be a lengthened AR-15, so of course it will be closer in weight to an AR-15 than an AR-10...

Even going with the comparison as is, the AR12 weighs a full pound more than the M4.

Then there is the matter of having a bit more than half as many .264 rounds as 5.56mm: 130 rds of .264 (assuming 26-rd mags) vs 210 rds of 5.56mm (in 30-rd mags).

If the number of .264 mags and/or mag capacity is increased to get a better ability for sustained combat, then soldier load increases again.

 

BTW, not only was that piece of propaganda verrrrry long, it was full of errors.

 

One notes they left off polycase 5.56mm in their comparison, despite the fact that 5.56mm polycase ammo has been ordered.

Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles

 

There is a statement in there which I have not seen anywhere else: “Current U.S. statistics reveal that 21% of small arms KIA’s and WIA’s in Afghanistan are from 7.62x54R caliber weapons” does anybody know if it is true?

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

Yup, been saying that for a while as well. These very long range ambushes are a non event. They don't require a new round, just the odd DMR and something like Switchblade to make them non-viable. The majority of serious firefights - and casualties - are within 300 metres, same as always. 

Squad goes into cover with 360 degree observation while the DMR and the 7.62 MG engage. As soon as support arrives the ambush breaks off. The only casualties are likely to be in the first few seconds while the squad is in the open. 

Something to keep in mind though is one of the tactics the Chechens used, which was mentioned by the US military couple years ago as seeing use in in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It places the sniper in solid cover a few hundred metres from the ambush point with another group at much longer range. The sniper takes his shot or shots, and then when the targeted unit reacts, the long range group opens up on them with whatever comes to hand to disguise the presence of the sniper. The sniper could just be a good shot with an AK, or a Tabuk 7.62x39 Dragunov, who slides away in the confusion, or stays in cover till its over. 

autogun said...

...bearing in mind that MGs are always likely to have longer barrels than IWs...

Two words that should never be used -- "never" and "always"   ;^)

NathanielF said...

stancrist said...

NathanielF said...

Yeah, though the biggest factor here is additional magazine weight. One of the issues I have with Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles is that the .264 USA AR-12 featured in it appears to just be a lengthened AR-15, so of course it will be closer in weight to an AR-15 than an AR-10...

BTW, not only was that piece of propaganda verrrrry long, it was full of errors.

One notes they left off polycase 5.56mm in their comparison, despite the fact that 5.56mm polycase ammo has been ordered.

Yeah.  That's one of the reasons I refer to it as propaganda.

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles

There is a statement in there which I have not seen anywhere else: “Current U.S. statistics reveal that 21% of small arms KIA’s and WIA’s in Afghanistan are from 7.62x54R caliber weapons” does anybody know if it is true?

It seems to correlate fairly well with the chart on Tony's site:

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

From what I gather, they are mostly harassing fire that inflicts few friendly casualties.  So yes, it does not seem to be a problem that requires a change to a GPC.

stancrist said...

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles

There is a statement in there which I have not seen anywhere else: “Current U.S. statistics reveal that 21% of small arms KIA’s and WIA’s in Afghanistan are from 7.62x54R caliber weapons” does anybody know if it is true?

It seems to correlate fairly well with the chart on Tony's site:

In statistical terms misleading without for example separation into two classes, one: long range, and two: close range firefights as initiated by adversary, and for each two ratios: 7.62 x54 casualties per number of such fired, and ditto 7.62x39 casualties per.

Also useful to calculate similar statistics for firefights initiated by own forces where own suppression is more of a factor from the start.

Of course all the above is impractical without accurate wide-azimuth sound recording which can be essential for useful operational research.

                stancrist said...

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

From what I gather, they are mostly harassing fire that inflicts few friendly casualties.  So yes, it does not seem to be a problem that requires a change to a GPC.

The tactical problem is that harassing fire can force friendlies to ground with loss of actual or potential initiative. Without prompt return fire - from for example own suitably long range MG and preferably light mortar, or in slower time (unless fully pre-arranged) friendly fire support - an adversary can more readily withdraw and/or manoeuvre some or all of its own elements.

A basic tactic for both sides is to draw them in rather than be drawn in. Also the capability for an infantry platoon/patrol to apply or obtain prompt long-range fire is almost indispensable at any time of day, and in the dark and even at night.

Am surprised Carniflex or Kirk hasn’t had a go at you already.

Depending on the resultant ballistics, the cartridge when fired from 14.5" barrels could potentially meet the specific energy threshold of 7.62 NATO at 1,000m if very fine projectiles are used.

Why change the goal post from total retained energy to specific retained energy? 

H_Minus said...

 

Depending on the resultant ballistics, the cartridge when fired from 14.5" barrels could potentially meet the specific energy threshold of 7.62 NATO at 1,000m if very fine projectiles are used.

Why change the goal post from total retained energy to specific retained energy? 

 

It's one of several standard ballistic metrics by which I evaluate different cartridge designs. I typically look at drop at 500m with a 25m zero and 2.6" sight height (considering changing either the zero or the range), maximum range of retention of 2,000 ft/s velocity, energy at 500m, maximum supersonic range, energy at 1,000m, and specific energy at 1,000m, but sometimes I throw in other metrics, and often for smaller calibers that already meet or exceed the absolute energy figure at a kilometer, I drop specific energy because I know the answer is "higher than 7.62mm".