Best intermediate rifle round and why
- Thread starter iMagUdspEllr
- Start date
Crow Hunter
New member
Mine in red again.
Since you are still waiting on your LF.net membership I PM'd you a sample. Here is a small taste of the wonders that await you. Just keep your mouth shut and read. Make sure you don't get the SAOFR label.
These guys have the experience to back up what they say and when I want to know about something, I listen.
@Crow Hunter:
1: Nope, I have not carried that many rounds. However, I am willing to take a hit to weight in order to carry a round that does a better job (less shots required means you can afford to have fewer rounds). Would you be willing to leave behind NODs or your rear plates or something else that might be potentially useful so you could still carry an equal number of rounds that you could with the 5.56? There is a finite amount of weight a person can carry and still be able to do their day to day activities, from talking to guys that do it all the time, they are right on the edge of that now. Adding more weight in ammo, could mean leaving something else behind. So you can carry 6 AR magazines comfortably but only three AK magazines with equal comfort? Pretty close. I used to carry 8 AK rounds in a HSGI DACH, that would give me a sore back quick. I could carry 12 AR mags in the same pouches with equal discomfort.I have since reduced to a minimalist chest harness that only carries 6 AR mags and I can tote that all day long without starting to feel back pain or have it interfere with my sidearm draw. I can do the same with about 4 AK mags but they make the harness stick out too much.
2: I have personally shot an MP5, a Thompson, a SCAR, an AR, an AK, a .30-06, and a M82A1. Judging by the energy levels (which is a very good indication of what the recoil is like because mv=mv) Actually F=1/2 mV^2 or mAthey are perfectly manageable to shoot when you choose to aim and fire... not rattle off rounds as if that will help you hit the target better. If you are firing anything full-auto you will not hit the target half-the time at 50 yards. I commend your ability to control the recoil of an AR so well. However, it would be easier to not have to empty your magazine to stop the bad guy. Who said you have to? That is what the guys at Lightfighter.net are saying. It takes the same number of rounds whether it be 5.56 x 45 or 7.62 x 51 to put a guy down. Why carry fewer rounds to do the same job? Unless you are talking about making shots at 500-700 yards, then you will get improved performance out of a heavier round, but it takes alot of skill to make shots like that at stationary targets the size of a person and when you start shooting at people, they probably don't usually stand still.
1) "...shoved all over the place with the AK..." I do not have that kind of experience when I shoot my friend's AK. Is your friend's AK a select fire weapon? Shooting semi-auto I don't get shoved around either, but on full auto I do. It does take me longer to recover from recoil unless I am prone with the mag jammed hard into the dirt. I mentioned this for dramatic effect of recoil differences.
2) Okay. I will take your word for it.
3) No, three rounds are enough when they are COM at close range. If that isn't enough... then it shows how pathetic the 5.56x45 is. Pistol rounds need to poke holes and make people bleed out slowly or hit vital organs/CNS to get rapid incapacitation. Rifle rounds hit with such large amounts of energy that they do not need to actually touch an organ to damage it. And, after three chest shots I would hope that your rifle killed them or put them into shock from all of their vital organs being traumatized THREE times. Because, you know... shock is triggered by rapid drops in blood pressure to your vital organs.You need to do more research, I am not trying to insult you, but what you are talking about is a myth. Sometimes a pressure wave can have some effect, particularly on organs that are inelastic like the liver, or lungs, but a person can function a long time bleeding from a liver and lungs are full of air, they don't transmit pressure waves. The only sure way to stop a living creature is to destroy the heart or the brain/spinal column. It doesn't matter if it is pistol round or a rifle round. If hydrostatic shock were true, you could shoot deer, coyotes, anything in the back leg and have them die. That doesn't happen. Unless you want them to bleed to death and track them all over the county you have to hit a vital organ.
Hey, actually, let's say I take your word for it on this one. How many rifle shots do I need to kill someone if I hit them in the chest at 25 yards?One if it is the spinal column. Let's say it is random distribution but they are all in the chest. And, then tell me what cartridge could I expect to use that will reduce that number of required shots to 3 Maybe 155 mm??
Also, MP5 recoil is very light. You are basically shooting what is already an easily controllable pistol round in something that handles and weighs similar to a rifle. I can't do better than you with an AR in full-auto. However, if you are firing semi-auto then recoil is not the mountain you are making it out to be. These are not full-house rifle rounds. So, yes, I will drive on, I would rather hit the target with a more effective round than having to hit the target multiple times (more than three at 25 yards?). I do not believe I need to step into .308 territory to achieve that (but apparently you think so).No, I don't think you have to be in .308 territory. You missed the point I was trying to make. The .308 is WAY more "powerful" than any of the intermediate rounds you are suggesting and yet it can't be counted on to reliably stop a person. It still requires you to hit a vital part to stop them. I am perfectly comfortable with 5.56.
4) The physics don't slow down. The rifle comes to a rest between shots because you are actually aiming... rather than spraying. Recoil will marginally slow down your ability to make follow-up shots... but if you are actually aiming... most of your time is spent doing that and a fraction of that is spent recovering from recoil. And, again... I do not seem to have the recoil issues you have with AKs. If you are getting pushed more with round A than Round B, Round B will give you faster shot to shot recovery.
3: The problem is that the 5.56x45 isn't as good as some of these other rounds in the important categories of: trajectory, penetration, and lethality. They take a hit to weight, recoil, availability, and cost. But, like I already refuted, availability and cost would go away if one of these rounds was adopted. And, availability and cost are not attributes of performance. So you have three "wins" vs two "losses". And, I believe most people would take a slight hit to weight and recoil if they got a substantial improvement in trajectory, penetration, and lethality. Not if they require more material to produce. The more lead/brass/powder/etc that is used in a round, the more expensive it will be. Not to mention to start up mass production of a new round you will have to get A LOT of tooling that will need to be amoritized over the life of the product, further increasing the total cost of the rounds. If you double the cost of a round to get a 5% increase in peformance, did you accomplish anything? Especially if you could take that same amount of $ and put it into training? Or a HUD type rifle optic that adjust the reticle for hold over and gives you 1st round hits every time?
So, it seems your opinion is that none of these rounds offer enough improvement in those three categories for it to outweigh the increases in weight and recoil. Many people might disagree with you. So, let me ask, if you couldn't pick 5.56x45... which one would you? 5.45x39? Most likely yes.
4: No there is no magic. Its called surface area. More of that leads to more drag. More drag leads to faster deceleration. Faster deceleration leads to quicker energy transfer to whatever is inducing the drag. Slo-mo vids of ballistics gelatin confirms this idea of mine.
The initial energy transfer from when the bullet changes medium is where larger diameter rounds have the advantage. They will hit more like a sledgehammer and less like an ice-pick. (These are similes again, don't go over-simplifying and get into how an AK round is only ~2-3 times the mass of an AR round and the difference in diameter is only ~2.06mm).
Yup, they both do it. But, one obviously transfers more energy quicker than the other. (Definitely not worried about damage caused due to the bullet yawing when the majority of damage caused by rifle rounds is the enormous transfer of energy). Again, you really need to do some more research. The data is out there. That isn't how it works. You are correct, when the bullet hits the medium, the begins slowing down, but if the bullet doesn't tumble, it punches the same "ice pick" hole that the 5.56 does. But instead of a .22" dia hole it is a .30" diameter hole or a .27" diameter hole straight through. It is when the bullet swaps ends and tears itself apart that it "dumps the energy". If you are talking about expanding point bullets, you get more of what you are talking about. But you are talking about military calibers that are limited to FMJ spitzer bullets.
5: Cool. But, you feel that none of these rounds are a worthy upgrade?I don't know. I haven't fired most of them and it would depend on what they are being used for. For my personal uses no.
6: I'm not sure exactly how that would work because the military isn't allowed to use "inhumane hollow-point ammunition".
7: I haven't seen a 6 magazine carrier designed for AK magazines so I would imagine that is why. I consider 6 AR magazine pouches obnoxious, though (I would just rather be flatter). The Eagle LE chest carrier isn't bad at all. I am not wide enough to do anything more than 3 mags across. Otherwise it wraps around and interferes with my ability to draw a sidearm. Unless I use a drop leg holster. Which I tried, and it sucks.
"Ummm.... Seriously, do more research." Kay... when you explain to me why I have to use my rifle like a pistol. Pistols are so weak you have to hit vital organs to stop someone rapidly. Rifles don't need to because they can remotely damage blood vessels and organs. I mean... if I still have to directly hit vital organs... then the best rifle round is a .22lr. Its, very light-weight, pierces organs, the ammo is cheap, the ammo is easy to find, and the rifle is lighter, too. If you can't get on LF.net go to M4Carbine.net and look at Doc Roberts Terminal Ballistics info. It has alot of good info that will help you out. I think you have read too many gun magazines.
"Actually, I don't just think. I KNOW there is a difference.How much experience do you have shooting?" There is a difference but it is easily controllable. You can see my signature. It isn't a big difference. Which is especially true when you grip the pistol with proper form. That is why professional shooters look like they shoot .22s when they shoot their .45s. I happen to work with a sponsored competition shooter. Most of them are shooting .38 Supers and those that aren't are shooting .45's just powerful enough to make the required Power Factor & using reduced power recoil springs. Depending on the game, many of them are also shooting with compensators as well. The reason they do that is because recoil IS a factor. As a matter of fact, the PF rules have to be there to keep everyone from shooting a 9mm.
"They saw NO IMPROVEMENT at normal engagement ranges." Were they wearing kevlar and plates? That could have been a factor. I have seen plates take 10 5.56x45 shots AFTER taking a 7.62x54R shot.Their targets were run of the mill Hajis in Afghanistan and Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVW6...4&feature=plcp
Start watching at 14:20.
But, that is when body armor is involved. In that case its better to riddle them with shots hoping that some shots miss their plates or use a caliber that can just charge right through the plate (but that wouldn't be an intermediate round for sure). If you want to penetrate plates, it isn't the caliber as much as it is velocity and bullet construction, mass is important but a lighter and fast round will penetrate much better than a slower heavier round. That is why a 9mm +P or a .357 Mag will penetrate soft armor that will stop a .45 ACP.
I'm not worried about shooting people with body armor, though. They are the good guys.
I applied to lightfighter.net. I can't read anything until they approve me, though.
Since you are still waiting on your LF.net membership I PM'd you a sample. Here is a small taste of the wonders that await you. Just keep your mouth shut and read. Make sure you don't get the SAOFR label.
These guys have the experience to back up what they say and when I want to know about something, I listen.
Assuming for purposes of discussion that the original question about intermediate cartridges was concerning something to be used for military purposes, I'd have to say that cost and availability are irrelevant. If something new is better, then it will become more common and cost remains irrelevant. If cost and availability are important, then change become unimportant.
BigMikey76
New member
I may be misunderstanding your statement, but it seems like you are saying that price is not a consideration for the military. While I certainly recognize that Uncle Sam has deep pockets, he is not in the business of paying more than necessary for ammunition. If I misunderstood your statement, please elaborate, as I would like to understand your intention.
603Country
New member
Geez, all this noise and anger. Calm down and get back on topic. I don't think this was to be all about military rounds, but was to be simply about what is an intermediate rifle round. Generally speaking, an intermediate round is something in the middle, and I think for the purposes of this discussion the middle should be between the largest calibers most of us shoot and the smallest. The smallest, for most, is probably the 223. The largest is going to vary more, but let's call it the 300 Win Mag. In the middle we have the 24 to 26 caliber non-overbore rounds. The 250 Savage, the 6.5x55, the 260, the 243, the 257, and such as that. The 270 and the 25-06 are not intermediate rounds. Neither is the 7mm08 or the 7x57.
Back to the 223. That is not an intermediate round. It's a little round. The 30 Carbine is a pistol bullet. The 8mm Kurz ought to be considered a pistol bullet. The AK round is probably an intermediate round, since it's about the same as a 30/30.
Back to the 223. That is not an intermediate round. It's a little round. The 30 Carbine is a pistol bullet. The 8mm Kurz ought to be considered a pistol bullet. The AK round is probably an intermediate round, since it's about the same as a 30/30.
FairWarning
New member
The 6.5 Nightstalker.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter
1: I would carry fewer magazines/rounds. Because, like I said, they would be more effective rounds, so fewer would be required for the same "jobs".
Or it could mean leaving more ammo behind (because you don't need as much to accomplish the same job). It seems, from what you are telling me, there is an arbitrary number of rounds that someone must carry. So if the weight of the rounds increase they can't opt for fewer rounds/magazines. Well, then I see why no-one wants to use heavier ammo (because they don't have a choice).
12 AR magazines? A bit much don't you think?
2:
You say (later on in your response) 3 shots weren't enough unless you were using a 155mm. So I would have to assume that would be at least the equivalent of a full magazine of 5.56x45 at least (assuming random displacement of shots).
From what you PMd me it looks like two guys think they require the same number of rounds. However, the battlefield is not a scientific environment. So, who is to say that they saw what they saw or did what they say they did. I'm not calling them liars (by any means at all). I'm just saying that a human's ability to recall details during traumatic events is very questionable. I would be interested to see what other members on the site said in response. I guess I will have to wait for approval, though.
One of them mentions Dr. Roberts.
Read this .pdf made by him: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
No I'm talking about out to ~300m. Read the .pdf above.
I never knew. And, that wasn't the situation I was proposing.
1)
I know. Unfortunately, you were being melodramatic. You are totally correct when you are firing full-auto. But, I already told you the merits of firing full-auto (there are none).
3) When a bullet hits an extremity most of the energy is lost when the bullet flies through it and the limb is severed at the location the bullet impacted. That leaves minimal energy and no path to travel to the torso where the vital organs are contained. If you are already hitting the chest cavity (like I said before) then there is plenty of media for the energy of the bullet to transfer to and a fantastic path for that energy to transfer to the brain (not to mention you are probably piercing at least one vital organ). Of course, if your bullet flies straight through them without transferring its energy then it will have the same effect as being pierced by a very thin sword in the same location.
So, since we agree that hitting vital organs is important... then why does it take more than 3 randomly distributed chest shots to kill someone?
I need 3 155mm Howitzer rounds to the chest at 25 yards to kill someone? Okay. So if I need to do more research... you need to check into the psych ward.
Not according to Dr. Roberts. And, one of the guys you quoted to me recommended to read his stuff.
4) Correct. But my point here doesn't lie in the extremes (again) it lies in the fact that you can't accept even the slightest increase in recoil even if it offers clearly superior terminal ballistics and range. For some reason, emptying your magazine is more important to you than simply having fewer rounds accomplish the same objective. I understand that you are under the impression that an equal number of rounds will be required regardless of the intermediate caliber chosen (and apparently including 7.62 NATO in that crowd, too). But, Dr. Roberts disagrees. Also, the worlds longest sniper shot was accomplished at a distance of ~1.53 miles with a .338 Lapua Magnum. One shot per baddy. It killed them. So, if that rifle is much less powerful than a howitzer... then how did it kill two people at a distance of 1.53 miles with only one shot each? I could easily argue that a rifle that generated equivalent energy levels at a shorter distance could do the same at that shorter distance.
I don't know what kind of energy that round has at 1.53 miles but it has about 1600-1700 ft-lbs of energy at 1000 yards (source: http://www.snipercentral.com/338.htm )
It can easily be argued that something that generates that much energy on impact, can kill someone with one shot (as long as it isn't a shot to an extremity).
3: These rounds are already being produced. The machines are being paid for as we type. Which is why most of these rounds are ~$16/20 rounds. If the government agreed to buy one of them for the entire military. It would be easy for the manufacturer to cut the government a deal for the bulk buy. Their machines would be paid for instantly and then some (the "then some" would include cost of materials and worker salaries + profit).
But, you're right, I'm not including the price of barrel changes, bolt changes, magazine changes. So that would not save them money. But, remember, I'm just talking about performance. Which one is best at the job. Not which one is the cheapest.
I would tend to agree if that plate didn't take 10 5.56 rounds at 50 yards after taking a hit from a 7.62x54R from 100 yards. (no plate carrier involved... just the plate).
I did listen to them and the very person one of them referenced (and that you referenced) recommends the 6.8 SPC.
1: I would carry fewer magazines/rounds. Because, like I said, they would be more effective rounds, so fewer would be required for the same "jobs".
Crow Hunter said:
Or it could mean leaving more ammo behind (because you don't need as much to accomplish the same job). It seems, from what you are telling me, there is an arbitrary number of rounds that someone must carry. So if the weight of the rounds increase they can't opt for fewer rounds/magazines. Well, then I see why no-one wants to use heavier ammo (because they don't have a choice).
12 AR magazines? A bit much don't you think?
2:
Crow Hunter said:
You say (later on in your response) 3 shots weren't enough unless you were using a 155mm. So I would have to assume that would be at least the equivalent of a full magazine of 5.56x45 at least (assuming random displacement of shots).
From what you PMd me it looks like two guys think they require the same number of rounds. However, the battlefield is not a scientific environment. So, who is to say that they saw what they saw or did what they say they did. I'm not calling them liars (by any means at all). I'm just saying that a human's ability to recall details during traumatic events is very questionable. I would be interested to see what other members on the site said in response. I guess I will have to wait for approval, though.
One of them mentions Dr. Roberts.
Read this .pdf made by him: www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
Crow Hunter said:
No I'm talking about out to ~300m. Read the .pdf above.
Crow Hunter said:
I never knew. And, that wasn't the situation I was proposing.
1)
Crow Hunter said:
I know. Unfortunately, you were being melodramatic. You are totally correct when you are firing full-auto. But, I already told you the merits of firing full-auto (there are none).
3) When a bullet hits an extremity most of the energy is lost when the bullet flies through it and the limb is severed at the location the bullet impacted. That leaves minimal energy and no path to travel to the torso where the vital organs are contained. If you are already hitting the chest cavity (like I said before) then there is plenty of media for the energy of the bullet to transfer to and a fantastic path for that energy to transfer to the brain (not to mention you are probably piercing at least one vital organ). Of course, if your bullet flies straight through them without transferring its energy then it will have the same effect as being pierced by a very thin sword in the same location.
So, since we agree that hitting vital organs is important... then why does it take more than 3 randomly distributed chest shots to kill someone?
I need 3 155mm Howitzer rounds to the chest at 25 yards to kill someone? Okay. So if I need to do more research... you need to check into the psych ward.
Crow Hunter said:
Not according to Dr. Roberts. And, one of the guys you quoted to me recommended to read his stuff.
4) Correct. But my point here doesn't lie in the extremes (again) it lies in the fact that you can't accept even the slightest increase in recoil even if it offers clearly superior terminal ballistics and range. For some reason, emptying your magazine is more important to you than simply having fewer rounds accomplish the same objective. I understand that you are under the impression that an equal number of rounds will be required regardless of the intermediate caliber chosen (and apparently including 7.62 NATO in that crowd, too). But, Dr. Roberts disagrees. Also, the worlds longest sniper shot was accomplished at a distance of ~1.53 miles with a .338 Lapua Magnum. One shot per baddy. It killed them. So, if that rifle is much less powerful than a howitzer... then how did it kill two people at a distance of 1.53 miles with only one shot each? I could easily argue that a rifle that generated equivalent energy levels at a shorter distance could do the same at that shorter distance.
I don't know what kind of energy that round has at 1.53 miles but it has about 1600-1700 ft-lbs of energy at 1000 yards (source: http://www.snipercentral.com/338.htm )
It can easily be argued that something that generates that much energy on impact, can kill someone with one shot (as long as it isn't a shot to an extremity).
3: These rounds are already being produced. The machines are being paid for as we type. Which is why most of these rounds are ~$16/20 rounds. If the government agreed to buy one of them for the entire military. It would be easy for the manufacturer to cut the government a deal for the bulk buy. Their machines would be paid for instantly and then some (the "then some" would include cost of materials and worker salaries + profit).
But, you're right, I'm not including the price of barrel changes, bolt changes, magazine changes. So that would not save them money. But, remember, I'm just talking about performance. Which one is best at the job. Not which one is the cheapest.
Crow Hunter said:
I would tend to agree if that plate didn't take 10 5.56 rounds at 50 yards after taking a hit from a 7.62x54R from 100 yards. (no plate carrier involved... just the plate).
I did listen to them and the very person one of them referenced (and that you referenced) recommends the 6.8 SPC.
Crow Hunter
New member
I had a big long response typed up but I lost it because I took too long to write it up, and I really don't want to rehash it all yet again. You seem to have a very unique view on this and you don't seem to be getting what I am saying.
My original answers were from the standpoint of a civilian right now, while you were apparently looking for answers from the military viewpoint.
I really think you should ask this question on LF.net and see what answers you get. It will be interesting. Make sure you mention this:
I am going to bow out now.
I hope I have at least made you think and maybe directed you at resources that can help you.
But I will leave you with this question:
Why did Russia and China, have much more experience with intermediate rounds, who also most likely have many fewer laws against testing rounds on live subjects. Who also have access to the same open source information that the we do, along with possibly other info that we don't, choose to rearm their entire armed forces with a 5.56 X45 sized round as opposed to merely reducing the diameters of their existing 7.62X39 rounds
to that "ideal" do everything cartridge diameter of 6.8/7mm that has been proven time and again to be the "ideal" general purpose cartridge size....
ETA:
Make sure before you post on LF.net fill in an accurate profile (if you post any .mil or LEO credentials, they WILL BE verified) and make your first post in the Introduction Forum.
My original answers were from the standpoint of a civilian right now, while you were apparently looking for answers from the military viewpoint.
I really think you should ask this question on LF.net and see what answers you get. It will be interesting. Make sure you mention this:
I am going to bow out now.
I hope I have at least made you think and maybe directed you at resources that can help you.
But I will leave you with this question:
Why did Russia and China, have much more experience with intermediate rounds, who also most likely have many fewer laws against testing rounds on live subjects. Who also have access to the same open source information that the we do, along with possibly other info that we don't, choose to rearm their entire armed forces with a 5.56 X45 sized round as opposed to merely reducing the diameters of their existing 7.62X39 rounds
to that "ideal" do everything cartridge diameter of 6.8/7mm that has been proven time and again to be the "ideal" general purpose cartridge size....
ETA:
Make sure before you post on LF.net fill in an accurate profile (if you post any .mil or LEO credentials, they WILL BE verified) and make your first post in the Introduction Forum.
Last edited:
semi_problomatic
New member
I'll give you the same answer as before. The 5.45x39 is a necked down round made to still be fired in an AK because they saw the results of a 55 grain 5.56 coming out of a 1:14 twist barrel. The 5.45 is not "new". It was concieved in 1972. What else was going on in 1972? What new rifle and cartridge had recently been introduced to the battlefield?? Could it be? The M16 and 5.56?? Did you also know that the SAW was supposed to be in 6.6mm? The only reason its not is because the army balked at yet another cartridge to add? But the 5.56 was considered too light, even after it'd been out and used in combat?
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter: Are you talking about the 5.45x39? The 5.45x39 has better ballistics than the 7.62x39. The ballistic coefficient is far better. The flatter shooting 5.56x45 would out-range them if they didn't. All they had to do was make the bullet smaller. They didn't have to redesign the case, make new magazines, et cetera.
Did they do live subject tests?
My profile is accurate... though I only filled out the required blocks. So, they don't have my name and whatnot.
Crow Hunter said:
Did they do live subject tests?
My profile is accurate... though I only filled out the required blocks. So, they don't have my name and whatnot.
Crow Hunter
New member
@Crow Hunter: Are you talking about the 5.45x39? Yes, they could have made a 6.8X39 or a 6.5X39 or a 7X39 but they chose a 5.45x39 The 5.45x39 has better ballistics than the 7.62x39. The ballistic coefficient is far better. The flatter shooting 5.56x45 would out-range them if they didn't. Yes, and any round that duplicates the performance of the 7.62x39 (like a large portion of your list) will have the same issues...All they had to do was make the bullet smaller. They didn't have to redesign the case, make new magazines, et cetera.But the "ideal" cartridge design would have required the same thing, just a 6.8 instead of a 5.45.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
...fewer laws against testing rounds on live subjects.
Did they do live subject tests? I don't know if they did or not, but I know we didn't and they don't have the open society that we have that would have led to an uproar. If it had been me, in China especially, it would be the ideal method for eliminating political prisoners...
My profile is accurate... though I only filled out the required blocks. So, they don't have my name and whatnot. Just make sure to do the introduction forum 1st, or you WILL get hammered.
So let's say that this was the ONLY reason that Russia changed to the 5.45, just a quick knee jerk reaction to the 5.56, just through a 5.45 round in a M43 case and off to town.
So why did China design a 5.8X42 round? Why didn't they make a 6.8 or a 7mm? Why didn't they just do a knee jerk 5.45 round too? They started designing it after the introduction of the 5.45 and according to Wikipedia worked on it from 1979 to 1987. If it were just a knee jerk reaction, it shouldn't have required that much testing and design work. Especially since they seem to be so good at copying everything.
Undoubtedly they have access to the same knowledge base as the rest of the world about the "ideal" cartridge diameter that the US has passed up so many times.
The only reason that I can think of is that no one knew the "inferiority" of the 5.56 since the US wasn't in any real "wars" after Vietnam. However, the Russians were in Afghanistan from 1979 through 1989 armed with 5.45X39 rifles in similar conditions to what we are in now and without "needing" to find an improved cartridge. According to lore, the round was called the "poison bullet" and was sought after by everyone because of it's propensity for early upset because of the hollow cavity in the nose.
So the Chinese, who undoubtedly had spies in Russia/Afghanistan and would know if there were problems with 5.45 and could have went with an "improved" design.
But they didn't.
Why?
Rifleman 173
New member
I voted for the 6.8 SPC because it has more range than the 7.62 X 39 and it is a heavier, bigger diameter bullet than the 5.56/.223 bullets. It fills the bill for a nice all purpose round that is easy to carry in quantity, unlike the 7.62 NATO rounds. My last 7 months in Viet Nam I humped rice paddies and mountains with a sniper rifle that shot the 7.62 NATO ammo. Both the rifle and ammo were heavy and a bear to move with, especially when under fire.
Well, actually the 5.45 did get a different case design and does use different magazines, although I couldn't say what difference to the performance.
When I said that cost is irrelevant for the military, the assumption is that procurement of large quantities would be at a low cost. None of these cartridges are particularly exotic and even if they were, if produced by the thousands, they would cease to be. None of them use any more critical materials than any of the others and certainly no more than a 7.62.
So the .30 carbine is a pistol cartridge, huh? Well, maybe; I know of two handguns that were chambered for them, probably three, counting the one that will chamber even a .45-70. I don't think the 7,9 kurz was ever chambered in a pistol or even a light machine gun.
When I said that cost is irrelevant for the military, the assumption is that procurement of large quantities would be at a low cost. None of these cartridges are particularly exotic and even if they were, if produced by the thousands, they would cease to be. None of them use any more critical materials than any of the others and certainly no more than a 7.62.
So the .30 carbine is a pistol cartridge, huh? Well, maybe; I know of two handguns that were chambered for them, probably three, counting the one that will chamber even a .45-70. I don't think the 7,9 kurz was ever chambered in a pistol or even a light machine gun.
Crow Hunter
New member
Not many of you guys work in a manufacturing environment. I can tell.
Making the changes to tooling and machinery required to go from 50,000 rds a year to 1,000,000 a month is very significant. And that is only counting the tooling/machinery modifications. There are also gaging, training, work procedures, new TPM requirements, etc all of which also cost money.
Also left out of the discussion is that some of the rounds, 6.8 SPC in particular, requires a completely different type/design of bullet from what is currently being used in the M855/A1. The 6.8 uses a bullet similar to the one used in the 77gr Mk 262. It has a hollow tip (not a hollow point) and it is manufactured completely differently than anything else that is currently being manufactured by ATK/Lake City and will require completely new processes.
If the design is changed to match the current M855/A1 bullet, you will potentially LOSE a lot of the rounds effectiveness against soft targets. It will no longer have the early upset, enhanced fragmentation characteristics that it exhibits today. It will still increase the downrange energy retention and most likely will be an improvement on intermediate barrier penetration just based on it's increased mass.
What you HAVE to look at is what is the actual improvement % that this change will generate. Then you have to look at how much $ will that % cost. That HAS to be compared to other projects. If other projects have a significantly higher % for the same or lower $, it would be a waste of $ to pursue it.
Lastly. Anything that is heavier than the 5.56, WILL cost more $/round to produce, even if the tooling was somehow free, because there is more material there. 62 gr of lead/copper/steel versus 115 gr, just the bullet alone will be nearly 2X the cost per round.
As an Engineer, I look at this and say, is it 2X more effective?
Well, that's a good question but like I said, it can't cost twice as much as a 7.62 NATO. Not reasonably so, anyway. But if cost is an overwhelming consideration, then changing anything is out of the question. The army passed up a chance to switch from the .30-06 to a different caliber because of cost reasons and that was before WWII. It even sounds like a good reason not to adopt a new caliber is because the new caliber will be different or do I miss the point?
Crow Hunter
New member
Not quite missed it, but close.
Say the round is 50% more effective at all ranges. It costs 50% more to make and the tooling/machinery that is currently being used for 5.56 is nearing the end of it's effective life and needs to be replaced anyway and a large portion of the weapons fleet is in need of upgrades/replacement anyway. That is a wash, do it.
But the same scenario, and the up grade is going to cost upwards of $2,000,000,000 (The last estimate I saw) to get a 50% improvement with an ongoing 50% increase in $/round cost, maybe there is something else that is better on the horizon or maybe that same $ could be used to get a 100% improvement somewhere else.
What if you reduce it even further and you only get an improvment from 300-400 meters and when shooting through auto-glass and only when you use a particular type of bullet that also give similar improvements to the existing 5.56 round....
Carry that even further and see that you could do the same projectile improvements to existing 7.62X51 rounds and get a signficant improvement beyond 400 meters up to 700 meters along with even better barrier penentration than the new round without the cost of a complete retool and you can use weapons already in MTOE....
Then the water gets a little more muddied.
Undoubtedly there are rounds out there that will improve on existing 5.56 rounds, but by how much and could that same money be spent elswhere to get an even bigger improvement....
Sounds like they should just go back to the 7.62 NATO. Alternately, they could vary the mix between 7.62 and 5.56 within a squad. That could be done on a theater basis. After all, it isn't like the army will be fighting all of its wars in the Middle East. If so, it isn't the ammunition that's the problem, it's something else.
Crow Hunter
New member
I don't know for sure, but I think that is where people are leaning right now. The 7.62 in it's current M80 ball configuration is not as effective as M855/A1 in the "normal" infantry fighting ranges, but if the round was improved it offers quite a bit more versatility than limiting all of our rounds to just a single "ideal" cartridge that is less effective than the 7.62 at extreme range. (Sniper/Crew served range) And just as effective to marginally better than 5.56 at "normal" infantry engagement ranges. Improvements in projectile design may even further blur this distinction.
The catch in my mind is that the 5.56 is hard to beat for the 0-200 yard range, with the same bullet type as is used in the 6.8 SPC, the 7.62 is hard to beat 200-700 yards.
A round that tries to do both, isn't going to be as quick at the 5.56 up close nor as hard hitting as the 7.62 at range.
When you can just change the projectile on both of these rounds and get even better performance without having to completely retool the entire arsenal/army system, it becomes less and less appealing.
Why hasn't anyone ever really fielded and stuck with the "ideal" round? Why does it keep getting brought up and then trashed, over and over again? Is it just "stupidity" or something else....
Crow Hunter
New member
BINGO!
That is my opinion.
There are a series of compromises that best fit any given situation.
Rather than try to get by with just a single compromise to fit every single variable. Choose a range compromises that cover as many individual areas well as possible.
Kind of like golfing. You can probably play a whole game with nothing but a single club, but I imagine it would make it harder. (I don't play golf except on the Wii.)