This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 5:33 by EmericD
Latest 4:38 by autogun
Latest 2:53 by schnuersi
Latest 5-Aug by mpopenker
Latest 3-Aug by nincomp
Latest 3-Aug by dudutin
Latest 1-Aug by stancrist
Latest 31-Jul by gatnerd
Latest 28-Jul by schnuersi
Latest 27-Jul by Guardsman26
Latest 26-Jul by Refleks
Latest 11-Jul by gatnerd
Yeah, I imagine achieving/maintaining proper bullet alignment might be problematic with such a short neck.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
The aim was to reduce the recoil of the contemporary 5.56mm ammunition to make the rifles more controllable in burst fire. To achieve this the bullet weight was reduced from 55 to 37 grains by making it from steel with a plastic core, yet the much improved FF meant that the BC remained the same. Little more than half the propellant was needed to match the muzzle velocity of the M193 so the cartridge case could be shortened to leave room for the long bullet, and the chamber pressure was so low (39,000 psi instead of 52,000) that the use of an aluminium case became feasible, leading to an overall reduction in cartridge weight of 50%. The trajectory remained the same, but the recoil impulse was reduced by 35% (equivalent to a reduction in free recoil energy of over 60%).
Thats a really impressive reduction in recoil.
Some solid NGSW info:
The XM5 weighs 8.38 pounds and 9.84 with the suppressor. The XM250 weighs 13 pounds with a bipod and 14.5 with the suppressor.
Currently the XM5 basic combat load is seven, 20-round magazines, which weighs 9.8 pounds. For the XM250 the basic combat load is four 100-round pouches, at 27.1 pounds. For comparison: the M4 carbine combat load, which is seven 30-round magazines, weighs 7.4 pounds, and the M249 light machine gun combat load, which is three 200-round pouches, weighs 20.8 pounds.
The Army has also confirmed that the suppressed XM5 is 36 inches in overall length with a 13.5-inch barrel.
The XM250 has a 41.87-inch overall length (with suppressor) and a 17.5-inch barrel. The weapon’s stock is no longer side folding, reportedly due to Army length requirements, and the weapon is “not considered [to have] a quick-change barrel like the M249.”
XM5 w/ Suppressor = 9.84lbs
20rd 6.8 Mag = 1.4lbs
36" OAL with suppressor, 13.5" barrel
XM250 w/ Suppressor = 14.5lbs
100rd pouch of 6.8 = 6.78lbs
41.87" oal with suppressor, 17.5" barrel
Based on 6.4oz/0.4lb for a 20rd Lancer Mag, and 1.4lb for a loaded 20rd mag, we get 20x6.8 = 1lb.
22.68g per cartridge
+ 1.5 lb optic (probably idk)
+ 0.5 lb peq 15
gee that is one heavy loadout