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.

  • 3337
    MEMBERS
  • 189769
    MESSAGES
  • 3
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 501889 views.
EmericD

From: EmericD

22-May

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

I understand your point, but in FN SCAR 20, there are surprisingly folk reporting many problems with these in 6.5 Creedmoor on factory ammo no reloads. 

And some folks using commercial .223 ammo in AR-15s (or commercial .30-06 in the M1 Garand) have experienced slam-fires...

When I found parts of primers into the mechanism of a rifle, my first thought is not to check the rifle, but to select another load.

EmericD

From: EmericD

22-May

stancrist said:

Sorry, but the discussion is not about SOCOM requirements.  It is about 6.5 CM and other 6.5 cartridges as alternatives to 6.8x51 SIG for NGSW use.  That means EPR, AP, Tracer, Blank ammo would, in fact, be necessary.

Well, unless you can load the government-issued 6.8 mm NGSW bullet in a 6.5 mm Creedmoor (or other 6.5 mm cartridge), there is nothing to discuss.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

EmericD said:

Well, unless you can load the government-issued 6.8 mm NGSW bullet in a 6.5 mm Creedmoor (or other 6.5 mm cartridge), there is nothing to discuss.

Clearly you are mistaken, because half a dozen members have been discussing it.

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

22-May

US military is an integral part of the game

Specifications for the SPIW, ACR, OICW, Bradley, Zumwalt, and myriad of other failed systems were specified by the military

I just wonder how many of generals and colonels who formulated those requirements or downselected contractors ended up in the advisory boards of said companies after their honorable retirement from active duty.

EmericD

From: EmericD

22-May

stancrist said:

Clearly you are mistaken, because half a dozen members have been discussing it.

Discussing how to use the government designed XM1186 (which is the starting point of the NGSW program) in a 6.5 mm cartridge? I should have missed something, for sure!

What I read is discussions about why SOCOM resumed it's 6.5 mm Creedmoor program, instead of following the path of the Army's NGSW, hence the fact that we are also talking about SOCOM requirements, and not NGSW requirements...

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

EmericD said:

What I read is discussions about why SOCOM resumed it's 6.5 mm Creedmoor program, instead of following the path of the Army's NGSW, hence the fact that we are also talking about SOCOM requirements, and not NGSW requirements...

Perhaps you missed these posts?

Msg 2699

  • US SOCOM has two current programmes to field weapons in 6.5x49 mm Creedmoor ; one is the MRGG the other is a LMG
  • The above initiatives could be a hedge in case NGSW fails to live up to expectations

Msg 2701

6.5 CM is a less capable caliber than 6.8x51, and 6.5 CM weapons are as big and heavy (or heavier?) as the 6.8x51 guns.

Msg 2712

US SOCOM, after seeing from the insight all the greatness of the 6.8x51 mm, decided to resume its 6.5 mm Creedmoor program.

Msg 2713

That is what allways puzzeled me. The 6,5 Creedmore allready does what the 6,8x51 is supposed to do. Its a established and mature design. Even if the Creedmore is not an option the 6,5x55 Swedish does the same as well. The 6,8x51 tp me allways seems a case of reinventing the wheel.

Msg 2718

Perhaps.  I think it would depend upon how much difference there is in performance.  And if one wants to go for an existing cartridge, 6.5x55 seems to me like a bad choice.

Msg 2719

6.5x55 is outdated  newer 6.5 cartriges more than emulate its performance in oal suitable for existing 308 magazines. 6.8x51 stuffed magnum performance in a case that fits the .308 mags. But high pressure is hardly free lunch.

Msg 2720

As a replacement for 5.56, 6.8 seems pretty nuts. But as a replacement for 7.62 or 6.5C,it seems much more compelling. There weapon and ammo weight is essentially identical but with much better ballistic performance for 6.8.

Msg 2724

The Swedish military used 6,5x55 in the FN Mag wich they later converted to 7,62x51. The ballistics of the 6,5x55 are really good and its an old cartidge. Applying some modern tech its performance should get even better. I just don't get what 6,8 does that non of the alternatives does.

Msg 2730

The US just spent a lot of time and money developing the XM5 and XM250.  A caliber change (to 6.5 CM, for example) that requires only a barrel swap would be one thing.  But changing to a longer, fatter cartridge like 6.5x55 would pretty much require starting over from scratch, to develop new guns, mags, etc.

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: I just did a brief search, and I could not find any 6.5 CM ammo now available that looks like it would meet military requirements. There is no EPR, lead free FMJ, AP, Tracer, Blank.  All still have to be developed, so 6.5 CM has no advantage over 6.8 in this regard.

Sorry, but SOCOM don't use blank ammo, nor EPR, nor lead-free FMJs. Even tracers are barely needed...

Well, "barely needed" = needed.  Which means that 6.5 CM Tracer still needs to be developed.

If SOCOM does not use EPR, what Ball ammo are they shooting in 5.56 and 7.62 machine guns?

If SOCOM adopts 6.5 CM, and if they don't use EPR, will they shoot HPBT Match ammo in MGs?

Why do you say SOCOM don't use blank ammo?  Photo: Ranger carrying a M240L machine gun 

stancrist

From: stancrist

22-May

mpopenker said:

US military is an integral part of the game

Specifications for the SPIW, ACR, OICW, Bradley, Zumwalt, and myriad of other failed systems were specified by the military

LOL.  The military creates specifications for military weapon systems.  Who woulda thunk?

mpopenker said:

I just wonder how many of generals and colonels who formulated those requirements or downselected contractors ended up in the advisory boards of said companies after their honorable retirement from active duty.

I am sure that some do.  But, how do you think specifying 6.8mm as the NGSW caliber would benefit either Army officers or businesses like GD and SIG? 

Would it somehow have benefited those individuals or companies less if 7mm, 6.5mm, or 6mm had been specified?  Or if no caliber had been mandated?

Apsyda

From: Apsyda

23-May

Depends on the project. Some are written basically for one company to win in an obvious way. The Marine Corps HK416 trials for example. Others are more open.

This NGSW program itself was fairly surprising that way. I figured that it was basically a show so the Army could adopt the Textron gun, given that they'd been paying for the LSAT project for a decade and a half at that point. The other entrants were mainly there to be seen and shown off before the Army went with the Cased Telescoped gun they were paying to have made. Only for that to blow out. 

mpopenker

From: mpopenker

23-May

stancrist said:

LOL. The military creates specifications for military weapon systems. Who woulda thunk?

the military (any military, Russian included), if unchecked from the outside, tends to create unrealistic requirements

Ask any soldier and he wants a gun which is the lightest, the most powerful, has most ammo capacity etc etc

SPIW was prime example of that, Russian 'Abakan' in its early iterations was absolutely unrealistic too

But in American case any requirement, regardless of how unrealistic it is, is wholeheartedly greeted with the industry because it means 'free' R&D money with very little chances of adoption and subsequent responsibilities for the end project

TOP