"In any event, the point is that NATO adopted 5.56 only because it was a standard US caliber."
 

This is more of a statement about the cartridges that SS109 competed against than that M193 was already in use by the US.

stancrist said:

Sounds very interesting.  So instead of going completely neckless, this time you opted to keep a very short neck.  Reason(s) why? Also, any pics of the bullet and/or loaded cartridge?

The last on the right.

The reason was simply that we didn't planned to have such a large groove at the base of the ogive (the groove is for the plastic case version, not the brass tests), and needed to keep the residual neck out of the groove.

EDIT:

Oups

That's better

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: Oh, please.  Using a different bullet just makes it a different loading, not a different cartridge.

I would normally agree, but since the M16A1 designed to fire the M193 was unable to fire effectively the SS-109, one can't simply consider the SS-109 to be "a different loading", as you need another weapon.

No, you absolutely do not need another weapon.  You only need another barrel, one that has the correct rifling twist for the bullet.

For instance, a friend of mine once shortened the barrel of an M16A1 to 8 inches.  When he fired M193 ammo, the bullets keyholed.

I suggested that he install a shortened M16A2 barrel.  He did so and that solved the accuracy problem.  Same gun.  Different barrel.

EmericD said:

People in France once considered the SS-109 to be "simply a different loading", and tried to feed the FAMAS F1 with SS-109 ammo, the result was not really impressive.

Of course.  (See my comments above.)  That does not mean it is a different cartridge, though.

5.56x45 is still 5.56x45, whether loaded with 55gr bullets or 62gr bullets (or any other weight).

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: In any event, the point is that NATO adopted 5.56 only because it was a standard US caliber.

I have to disagree. If the point was just to please Uncle Sam "because it was a standard US caliber", then NATO would have selected the XM777, not the Belgium SS-109...

I did not say NATO adopted 5.56 "to please" the US.  I said NATO adopted 5.56 because it was a standard US caliber.

The only reason there was NATO interest in 5.56x45 was because the US had adopted and was using that cartridge.

If 5.56 had never become a US standard caliber, it's extremely improbable that NATO would have wanted to adopt it.

ramlaen said:

This is more of a statement about the cartridges that SS109 competed against than that M193 was already in use by the US.

Is it?  Do you think the SS109 loading would ever have been created if 5.56 had not been a standard US caliber?

EmericD said:

Oups

Yeah, I imagine achieving/maintaining proper bullet alignment might be problematic with such a short neck.

autogun said:

Sounds like the 5.56mm FABRL*, shown below with the M193.

Take .222 REM case; shorten neck 3mm; load Emeric's bullet = 5.56 FABRL Magnum?  

stancrist said:

No, you absolutely do not need another weapon. You only need another barrel, one that has the correct rifling twist for the bullet.

While this is OK for civilians, that's not working for militaries.

The US didn't adopted a "M16A1 with a new barrel", they adopted the M16A2, which is another rifle.

It's plain and simple, the M16A1 can't fire the SS-109 ammo (in fact, it can't fire the whole family of SS-109 ball / L-110 tracer and P-112 AP ammo), so you can't consider that "it's just another loading".

Just have a look of the history of the .244 Remington and 6 mm Remington.

stancrist said:

5.56x45 is still 5.56x45, whether loaded with 55gr bullets or 62gr bullets (or any other weight).

The boxes you show are written ".223 Rem" and not 5.56x45 mm.

Now, if you can find a manufacturer that is claiming that ".223 Remington is equal to 5.56 x 45 mm no matter the bullet", that would be an interesting claim.

stancrist said:

I did not say NATO adopted 5.56 "to please" the US. I said NATO adopted 5.56 because it was a standard US caliber. The only reason there was NATO interest in 5.56x45 was because the US had adopted and was using that cartridge. If 5.56 had never become a US standard caliber, it's extremely improbable that NATO would have wanted to adopt it.

As the US is the main driver behind NATO, and forced the initial adoption of the 7.62 x 51 mm (against the will of a significant number of NATO countries) in 1954, only to adopt the .223 Rem less than 10 years after (and without any considerations to other NATO countries), I think that it's not arguments, but self-fulfilling prophecy.

The US organized the 1976-1979 small-arms evaluation only because the UK and Germany were developping their own SCHV rounds in order to overcome the operational limits of the M193, which were well known at this time.

The XM777 (proposed by the US) was fully compatible with the M16A1.

Unfortunately, the operational gain of the XM777 versus the M193 was very limited, and the UK 4.85 x 49 mm proved to be much better than both M193 and XM777.

Fortunately for the US, the long range capability of the Belgium SS-109 was even better than the 4.85 x 49 mm, and the German caseless ammo was not mature enough and failed during safety tests.

EmericD said:

We are trying to explore all the technical possibilities available to enhance the 5.56 mm & 7.62 mm (lighter cases, advanced propellents, better bullets), then we will decide if "the juice worth the squeeze". Additionally, those results will "feed" a technology program run by the European Defense Agency (including governments and manufacturers), devoted to define and build "a better mousetrap".

Super cool, please keep us posted on the developments.

Have you figured out how to economically produce VLD lead free military projectiles? I recall you mentioning trying to produce a brass/steel core version?

Some more explanation concerning the 5.56mm FABRL:

Thats a really impressive reduction in recoil.