gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191153
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 549545 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

18/5/22

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

The problem with thermals is that you are looking at a display screen not through glass so quite bad as a day scope and poor at target ID, making for a lot of bulk if you add a direct glass channel as well.

Right, the FIR scope is bulky because you have 2 scopes in one, the thermal channel and a DVO, and you could switch from thermal to visual with just a push on the pad located on the front grip. Thermals scopes are eating batteries very fast, you still have a usable DVO if you run out of juice.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18/5/22

EmericD said:

You wrote that "the ONLY (emphasis mine) reason 5.56 mm was adopted by NATO is because it was a US standard caliber".

Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

EmericD said:

I can't say that I read all the official reports of this evaluation, but at least I read several kilograms of test reports and minutes of meetings, and no one ever mentioned the point that "the SS-109 is standard US caliber",

I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber.

Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

18/5/22

Stan, you way of arguing is sometimes, well,  hard to follow?

For example, you wrote to the effect that a simple barrel change was about all needed to turn the M16A1 into an M16A2. To  which Emeric  responded that there was more to the adoption of the M16A2 than just a barrel change.  

In message 2653 you explain at length the many differences between M16A1 and M16A2 to show the readers how wrong Emeric was in his opinion. As I understand it, message 2653 represents a 180 degree turn from what you wrote before and explains in detail the correctnes of what Emeric wrote. 

Or the usefulness of firing SS109 type ammunition from M16A1, which Emeric denied. You actually use graphics from the M16A2 Field Manual, which prove exactly what Emeric wrote. But you create the impression that Emeric had said, the SS109 could not be fired at all from the M16A1, which he of course did not. He had simply stated what everyone knows and what the U.S. Field Manual on the M16A2 at length explains: if you want to hit anything short of barn doors, don't use SS109 type ammunition in a M16A1 or other rifles with a twist intended for M193.            

njb3737

From: njb3737

18/5/22

Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

what l’m seeing is largely a no , Germany , Sweden and Canada all have current IW ( rifle ) replacement programs in process and all sticking with either 5.56 or in the case of Sweden possibly 7.62n.
 

We could have a situation where the biggest NATO member the US is operating a different calibre to the rest not a good situation if a major war occurs .

like the ss-109 debate I think Europe needs an answer and NATO a competition.  


 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

18/5/22

Given what’s happening in Ukraine vs Russia, I’d be surprised if anyone on the continent felt like a new caliber was a pressing issue, especially compared to other military upgrades.

I suspect 6.8 will appeal to those primarily concerned with China such as US and Australia.

EmericD

From: EmericD

18/5/22

stancrist said:

Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

And I found not a single mention in several kilograms of documents that anyone at this time considered that to be an argument.

What is repeatedly stated is that the SS-109 was the only SCHV round able to defeat NATO "10 gauge" / 3.5 mm steel plate, at the same range than the 7.62 mm ball (>550 m).

stancrist said:

I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber. Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

And so are the .222 Remington, the .223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum... all are "5.56 mm" calibers.

Icing on the cake, you can fire all those cartridges in a M16 "with just a barrel change"!

Notice that this statement works also for the .300 AAC (which "just need a barrel change" to be fired from a M16), but I will have the utmost difficulty to demonstrate that the .300 AAC "is just another loading" of the .223 Remington.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18/5/22

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Yup.  That is indeed what I wrote.

And I found not a single mention in several kilograms of documents that anyone at this time considered that to be an argument.

 That 5.56x45 was adopted by NATO because it was a US standard caliber is not an argument.  It's more a statement of fact.

The only reason that the Belgians developed the SS109 loading was to get improved performance over US 5.56x45 loadings.

If 5.56x45 had not been a US standard caliber, there is no reason to think that Belgium would ever have created the SS109.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said:  I'd be extremely surprised if they had said "the SS109 is standard US caliber" because "SS109" is not a caliber.  Whether 55gr M193 Ball or 62gr SS109/M855 Ball -- or even 77gr Mk262 Special Ball -- the caliber is 5.56mm!

And so are the .222 Remington, the .223 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum... all are "5.56 mm" calibers.

That's cute, but you're evading the point:  "SS109" is not a caliber.

stancrist

From: stancrist

19/5/22

JPeelen said:

Stan, you way of arguing is sometimes, well,  hard to follow?

Sorry about that.  I'll try to do better.

JPeelen said:

For example, you wrote to the effect that a simple barrel change was about all needed to turn the M16A1 into an M16A2. To  which Emeric  responded that there was more to the adoption of the M16A2 than just a barrel change.  

In message 2653 you explain at length the many differences between M16A1 and M16A2 to show the readers how wrong Emeric was in his opinion. As I understand it, message 2653 represents a 180 degree turn from what you wrote before and explains in detail the correctnes of what Emeric wrote.

It's not a 180-degree turn.  It's two different subjects:  The necessity to use SS109; and the desirability of a new rifle.

In Msg #2636, Emeric said:  "since the M16A1 designed to fire the M193...you need another weapon [to use SS109].*

In Msg #2640, I responded:  "you do not need another weapon [to use SS109].  You only need another barrel."

In Msg #2644, Emeric said:  "The US didn't adopt a 'M16A1 with a new barrel', they adopted the M16A2..."

My agreement (in Msg #2653) with that statement in Msg #2644 does not contradict what I said in Msg #2640.

The US did not need to adopt another rifle in order to use SS109 ammo.  They could have rebarreled the M16A1.

Instead, they chose to adopt the M16A2 because that route offered advantages that simple rebarreling did not.

If they had just replaced the M16A1 barrels, they would've had a lot of old rifles that could use the new ammo.

By procuring M16A2, they got brand new rifles -- with many improved features -- that could use the new ammo.

*In Msg 2657, Emeric contradicted himself, saying that some M16 rifles were rebarreled to use SS109 ammo.

JPeelen said:

Or the usefulness of firing SS109 type ammunition from M16A1, which Emeric denied. You actually use graphics from the M16A2 Field Manual, which prove exactly what Emeric wrote. But you create the impression that Emeric had said, the SS109 could not be fired at all from the M16A1, which he of course did not.

Actually, he did.  In Msg #2644, Emeric said:  "It's plain and simple, the M16A1 can't fire the SS-109 ammo..."

stancrist

From: stancrist

19/5/22

njb3737 said:

Getting back on the subject of NGSW , what’s the chances of another NATO nation taking on the 6.8 x51 round ?

Assuming that the US follows through and fully fields the M5 and M250, I think the chances are good that -- as happened with 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 -- the 6.8x51 will be adopted by NATO.  Especially if conversion of 7.62x51 machine guns to 6.8x51 is feasible.

njb3737 said:

what l’m seeing is largely a no , Germany , Sweden and Canada all have current IW ( rifle ) replacement programs in process and all sticking with either 5.56 or in the case of Sweden possibly 7.62n.

Actually, since Sweden not only is reportedly planning to replace their assault rifles with battle rifles, but has shown some interest in NGSW, I would rate Sweden (and perhaps Finland, which expects to replace its assault rifles fairly soon, and has partnered with Sweden on military rifle development and procurement) as being a "definite maybe" for adoption of 6.8x51.  Aiming for a Joint Target – Corporal Frisk

njb3737

From: njb3737

19/5/22

I think Sweden is looking to start fielding a battle rifle some time in 2023 so maybe too soon for NGSW.

The build for the US army and the availability of ammunition will be a factor I believe against them taking it on at this stage.

It’s looking like a 7.62n rifle AR from Sako is the front runner on this ( others on this forum may know better ). In theory nothing stopping them from re barrelling to 6.8 in the future depending on the rifles design and any changes to the round.

TOP