I wonder if the reduced-range ammo for the new 6.8x51 will be loaded in polymer cases at some point.  There has been some speculation that the new 6.8 Carbine would use the reduced range ammo for combat as well as practice.

Then again, True Velocity claimed that their polymer cartridge could handle 80,000 psi.  The bottom of the cartridges are made of metal already.  I wonder if PCP could make full-pressure 6.8x51 ammo as well?

nincomp said:

I wonder if the reduced-range ammo for the new 6.8x51 will be loaded in polymer cases at some point. 

It definitely will be.

Maybe.  Maybe not.

It will never happen.

One of the above is probably right.  

nincomp said:

There has been some speculation that the new 6.8 Carbine would use the reduced range ammo for combat as well as practice.

Is there a sound, logical basis for that speculation, or is it just random internet guys saying, "Hey, why not use the reduced-range training ammo for combat?"

It seems to me the Army would want to use ammo with the GP bullet for combat, not a special projectile designed to limit maximum range for target practice.

There is no technical reason why a lower-powered GP round could not be developed for door-kickers.  The extra penetration may be considered a liability in an urban environment and reduced recoil and reduced weight (with a polymer case) would address commonly cited disadvantages of the new weapon system.  Cost would also be a factor because the hybrid cases will not be cheap.  A GP round at lower pressure would increase barrel life as well.

There is more than one type of reduced range ammo.  One option would be a version of the GP load at lower pressures, possibly using a higher-drag projectile.  Since the new weapons will have a programmable optic, it is no longer so important for the reduced-range projectile to match trajectory of full power combat ammo out to several hundred meters.  As you are probably aware, some current reduced-range ammo use fins or flutes designed to slow bullet rotation and cause instability after a certain distance.  If desired, of course, this type of ammo could be produced as well.

nincomp said:

There is no technical reason why a lower-powered GP round could not be developed for door-kickers.

That's not the issue.  The question is, does the Army have any plan to develop a reduced-power GP load?

The only info I recall seeing is that -- of the planned loads -- there is only one GP load, and it is full power.

nincomp said:

There is more than one type of reduced range ammo.

Yes, but as with the GP, there has been mention of only one reduced-range load currently being planned.

Since all I've seen from the Army is that it's for training, I'm skeptical that it will be used as combat ammo.

stancrist said:

Is there a sound, logical basis for that speculation, or is it just random internet guys saying, "Hey, why not use the reduced-range training ammo for combat?" It seems to me the Army would want to use ammo with the GP bullet for combat, not a special projectile designed to limit maximum range for target practice.

The 135 gr FMJ "training / practice" round proposed by SIG and used in all the recent videos posted on Youtube is not "reduced range" in the sense you're pointing out.

It's a "reduced range" ammo versus the full power GP round.

EmericD said:

The 135 gr FMJ "training / practice" round proposed by SIG and used in all the recent videos posted on Youtube is not "reduced range" in the sense you're pointing out. It's a "reduced range" ammo versus the full power GP round.

Thanks, Emeric.  If that is conventional lead-core FMJ, it seems unlikely to be adopted by the Army for training/practice use. 

Environmental regulations to reduce lead pollution on firing ranges are what led to development of (lead-free) EPR bullets.

Also, lighter rifle ammo, more 40mm, Goose, or MG ammo can be carried.

stancrist said:

       nincomp said: There is more than one type of reduced range ammo.

Yes, but as with the GP, there has been mention of only one reduced-range load currently being planned.

Since all I've seen from the Army is that it's for training, I'm skeptical that it will be used as combat ammo.

In regard to my second sentence above, I find that I conflated two different subjects:

- 7.62mm Reduced Range Training Ammunition

- 6.8mm Reduced Range Ammunition (see below)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From Msg 2699

Guardsman26 said:

Winchester has announced that there will be five core NGSW ammunition loadings.

* Special Purpose (SP) - armour piecing round

* General Purpose (GP) - less powerful than SP round 

* Reduced Range (RR) - even less powerful round designed for CQB / Urban operations

* Tracer (T) - based on GP round ballistics

* Blank (B)

stancrist said:

Thanks, Emeric.  If that is conventional lead-core FMJ, it seems unlikely to be adopted by the Army for training/practice use. 

I would say the opposite.

Remember that the M855A1 was banned for indoor training due to its "semi-AP" capability, and for outdoor training due to the wider ricochet fan vs. the M855...

The "reduced power" 6.8x51 mm is ballistically very close to the M118LR (same BC, same MV, same lead core), so at least it could be used on the same training range.

EmericD said:

Remember that the M855A1 was banned for indoor training due to its "semi-AP" capability, and for outdoor training due to the wider ricochet fan vs. the M855...

Heh, heh.  I can't remember something that I never knew.  This is the first I've heard of EPR ammo being banned from Army ranges.

If it is now permissible to use lead-core FMJ for training and practice, of course that puts a completely different light on the subject.