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.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191272
    MESSAGES
  • 25
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 556585 views.
Guardsman26

From: Guardsman26

2/6/22

Brilliant response, Emeric. People forget that ammunition logistics are hugely important. 

Going back to the main thrust of my argument against NGSW, I don't think regular infantry battalions will need to engage enemies wearing body armour at 600 metres. They'll certainly need to do so at ranges below 300 metres. As Tony's iconic chart shows, only a small percentage of engagements took place beyond 400 metres. 

If the NGSW requirement is reduced to Level IV to 300 metres, this would allow a lighter, less powerful round with genuine weight savings to be adopted. A round like the Russian 6x49 mm fired at 3,500 would be awesome. 

With NGSW as it now is, we're seeing four standard loadings, Special Purpose (SP), General Purpose (GP), Reduced Range (RR) and Tracer (T). it looks like GP, RR and T may come in a standard bass cartridge and be fired at 62,000 psi. Whatever, I think we will need to get used to 6.8x51 defining the next NATO standard. 

Everything I've read here so far convinces me that 6.8x51 mm can replace 7.62x51 mm NATO, but not 5.56x45 mm. 

I think the US Army's new PAAC study will end-up trying to replace 5.56x45 mm NATO with something like 6x39 mm ARC. This could well make 6.8x51 mm redundant. In any event, I don't see the rest of NATO jumping on the NGSW bandwagon, at least in the short-term. 

EmericD

From: EmericD

2/6/22

Guardsman26 said:

People forget that ammunition logistics are hugely important.

With the US Army selecting the 6.8x51 mm; SOCOM adopting the 6.5 mm Creedmoor along the .300 AAC; some Navy operator inside SOCOM adopting the 6 mm ARC; UK SF adopting the 6.8 mm SPC and some SF units in Europe adopting the 260 Rem and the .300 AAC, life is going to be interesting, for sure!

And let's not forget the .338 Norma along the .338 Lapua, the .408 CT, the .375 Enabler and the .300 Norma (and the old .300 Winchester Magnum) for good measure.

nincomp

From: nincomp

2/6/22

Guardsman26 said:

Everything I've read here so far convinces me that 6.8x51 mm can replace 7.62x51 mm NATO, but not 5.56x45 mm. 

I tend to agree.  The big question to me is to what extent the 5.56x45 replacement will be hobbled by the existing AR15/M4 platform.  The barrel extension and bolt strengths pose pressure limitations and the magazine well dimensions pose cartridge size limitations.  At this point in time,  I would not bet on the reliability of 6mm ARC/65 Grendel-sized cases feeding through AR15/M4 magazine wells.   FWIW,  just this month the 65 Grendel forum had yet another thread concerning magazines and feed issues.

stancrist

From: stancrist

2/6/22

Guardsman26 said:

Going back to the main thrust of my argument against NGSW, I don't think regular infantry battalions will need to engage enemies wearing body armour at 600 metres. They'll certainly need to do so at ranges below 300 metres. As Tony's iconic chart shows, only a small percentage of engagements took place beyond 400 metres.

The chart shows >30% of engagements occurred beyond 400 meters.  I sure wouldn't classify 30% as a "small" percentage.

Guardsman26 said:

If the NGSW requirement is reduced to Level IV to 300 metres, this would allow a lighter, less powerful round with genuine weight savings to be adopted.

Color me skeptical.  I doubt that a round powerful enough to penetrate Level IV armor at 300 meters will be lighter than 5.56 NATO.

Guardsman26 said:

With NGSW as it now is, we're seeing four standard loadings, Special Purpose (SP), General Purpose (GP), Reduced Range (RR) and Tracer (T).

Same as it has been, except for a couple of name changes: 

Special Purpose = Armor Piercing

General Purpose = Ball

Guardsman26 said:

I think the US Army's new PAAC study will end-up trying to replace 5.56x45 mm NATO with something like 6x39 mm ARC.

PAAC study?

stancrist

From: stancrist

2/6/22

Guardsman26 said:

I think the US Army's new PAAC study will end-up trying to replace 5.56x45 mm NATO with something like 6x39 mm ARC.

Okay, I just read the article linked to by Emeric, as well as a few other articles.

They reported the PAAC study as looking for a replacement of the 7.62 M240.

None said anything about trying to replace 5.56x45 with something like 6 ARC.

ETA:  Unless NGSW is cancelled, why would they adopt a new round like 6 ARC?

After all, 6.8x51 was developed to replace 5.56x45 in the Close Combat Force.

stancrist

From: stancrist

3/6/22

nincomp said:

       Guardsman26 said: Everything I've read here so far convinces me that 6.8x51 mm can replace 7.62x51 mm NATO, but not 5.56x45 mm. 

I tend to agree.

The Army seems to disagree.

"The Army recently announced that the Next Generation Squad Weapon, the XM5 rifle and XM250 light machine gun will replace the M4/M16 rifle and the 249 light machine gun...  The new weapon system will use the 6.8 mm family of ammunition instead of the 5.56 mm ammunition the M4/M16 utilized."  

NGSW signifies an evolution in Soldier lethality | Article | The United States Army

nincomp said:

The big question to me is to what extent the 5.56x45 replacement will be hobbled by the existing AR15/M4 platform.  The barrel extension and bolt strengths pose pressure limitations and the magazine well dimensions pose cartridge size limitations.  At this point in time,  I would not bet on the reliability of 6mm ARC/65 Grendel-sized cases feeding through AR15/M4 magazine wells.   FWIW,  just this month the 65 Grendel forum had yet another thread concerning magazines and feed issues.

Yes, the reliability of 6.5 GREN/6 ARC stainless steel magazines has been an ongoing issue for many years. 

But, in the unlikely event that 5.56 NATO were to be replaced by 6 ARC, I doubt that it would be a problem.

I expect that 6 ARC variants of the M4 carbine would follow the lead of the LWRC Six8 and have enlarged mag wells, with caliber-specific, polymer 30-rd mags.

However, another issue is that no one has yet demonstrated that 6 ARC will work in a belt-fed LMG, which would be a critical factor in adopting this caliber.

autogun

From: autogun

3/6/22

EmericD said:

UK SF adopting the 6.8 mm SPC

Any more details, Emeric? Which weapons, what ammo and is it general SF issue or just available if needed?

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

3/6/22

6 ARC magazine issues stem from them not being dedicated mags but rather 6.8SPC mag bodies occasionally with new followers. I have been sourcing mags for my rifles from Israel's E-lander while they work ok , they are not dedicated 6ARC mags , that would need slightly modified stamping. But if it were to be used militarily i am certain tooling for proper mags would be made. Similar problems exist with .300BLK mags as most are just marketed btu realy .223rem , mags , so when you load up the subsonic rounds with heavy 200grain projectiles things fall apart. The ones that work best for my rifles are Lancer systems. There is realy no reason for the 6 ARC not to work from either magazines or belt

Sig actually made this .300blk bullet as a workaround for lazy ass magazine manufacturers .

 

As you can imagine the magazine contour from 6.8SPC is not realy well fitting to the 6.5Crendel or 6ARC case.

TOP