Best intermediate rifle round and why
- Thread starter iMagUdspEllr
- Start date
Crow Hunter
New member
It could be construed that way....
Considering that is the bulk of my shooting experience at living things. Along with muskrats, coyotes, ducks, deer, dove, quail, rabbits, squirrels, lizards, snakes, turtles, frogs, starlings, sparrows, mice and even some wasps & bumble bees...
I'm a country boy from the South. Get a gun a 8 yrs old and anything is a potential target.
Luckily, never fired at a human, and hopefully never will.
Crow Hunter
New member
I don't come on forums to get mad.
I come on them to try and help people out and for entertainment.
It is amazing to me how some people's minds work.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter:
They were trying to one-up the 5.56. 'Oh your round is 5.56? Well, we will make ours 5.45 AND put more powder behind it. How do you like that?' I'm certain that their engineers were doing a broad-stroke copy of our round. Remember, they were trying to extend the range of the AK. They saw the 5.56 worked and they probably figured only getting slightly smaller diameter with the same case length wouldn't accomplish that objective well enough. If you slapped a 6.8 or 6.5 diameter bullet in front of an AK case it wouldn't perform like a 6.8 SPC which is 6.8x43 not 6.8x39. I'm certain the ballistics of a 6.8x39 case aren't very ideal.
The 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .300 BLK, and 5.45x39 do not have the same range issues of the 7.62x39. The .300 BLK has the worst trajectory of those four rounds but it still beats the trajectory of the 7.62x39. The BC of 123gr 7.62x39 rounds is about .21 and the BC of the 125gr 7.62x35 is about .33. The .300 BLK retains its energy longer and flies further because it is more aerodynamic. The major benefit of the 7.62x35 is that it gets nice energy levels even out of very short barrels (but I know you aren't concerned with energy levels at all... I still want you to respond to my comment about the world's longest sniper kills) and because it has a better ballistic coefficient it still get's decent range out of short barrels. Out of 16" barrels it is still a very serviceable round. It won't really make it out to 300m very easily though. You would probably have to go 115gr, but even then I doubt it.
So, since the .300 BLK doesn't meet the range requirement then you still have to address the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 5.45x39.
Nix that. You already admitted to liking 5.45x39 so you are really down to 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel.
No, it wouldn't. If you maintained the same case dimensions as the 7.62x39 (save for necking it down more) You would have a stubby version of the 6.8 SPC bullet. They would not "fly the same" and it definitely wouldn't be as aerodynamic as the 6.8 SPC cartridge due to the more aerodynamic bullet and more powder behind it. I don't understand how you are still fighting me on this one. One of the guys you quoted recommended Dr. Roberts and HE recommends the 6.8 SPC.
I still don't understand why I have to explain why technologically inferior countries decided to copy the country that beat them. But, same thing here. They saw the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39 and put their own spin on it voi la the 5.8x42.
You do realize I'm not concerned about the caliber so much as the energy and terminal ballistics right? If there is something that can be a better intermediate round, I want it. 5.56x45 has been having some issues... others not so much. These rounds are competing for that throne. And, some of them are getting recommendations by knowledgeable people. From what you quoted to me, it seems like people with certain jobs don't want to adopt these rounds because they are heavier and they are forced to carry a certain number of them. That is an artificial penalty that wouldn't exist if we were simply trying to go for performance.
Hey, inexperienced, less technologically advanced people will take longer to answer the same questions. Also, they were just trying to one-up the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39. So, it required more than just duplicating the design. I thought you were an engineer? I shouldn't have to explain that to you. It seems like you are just banking on my ignorance to accept your ASSERTION (that you haven't supported) that since everybody made a round with the caliber between 5.4 and 5.8 that there is some sort of "magic" going on there. If the proof of effective terminal ballistics was there I would believe you. But, just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right, or the best, or the ideal. That is flawed logic.
Long story short on that one (whoops too late) just show me proof of how much more effective the terminal ballistics of the 5.56x45 is over these competing rounds and the evidence will speak for itself.
Passed up? Maybe they had a specific set of design goals and maybe they knew less about terminal ballistics then, than they do now. Maybe they were only going for weight savings. Who knows? As an engineer (which I assume you are... I remember you saying something like that), I believe you to be intellectually dishonest for not recognizing/admitting that even a slight fluctuation in design goals can drastically change the design of the end product. And, the skill of the design team will determine how well their objective was accomplished.
The 5.45x39 poison bullet "lore" stemmed from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RussianWP.jpg
It found a way to dump its energy. The 5.56x45 has been shown to not do this without changes in the bullet design (which I say... well you have to change the bullet design... might as well make a new cartridge made for that ideal bullet design.)
And, China did "improve" the design. They made the 5.8x42. Apparently they thought the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39 weren't good enough for them. The Russians didn't think the 5.56x45 was good enough for them. They both had to answer the issue of matching the range of the 5.56x45... but they still went and made their own. All they had to do was make a slightly better design.
And now, with more knowledge gained on the subject, we seemed to have found a new design that might work even better.
Companies are already making the rounds. These companies are big companies. The machines are already there. You are dramatizing how much effort is required to do more of the same for these companies.
But, hey, lets even throw that aside. As an engineer, you should understand "diminishing returns." But, when it comes to "competing for survival" 1% is worth every penny. For engineers is it worth it? No. For the government is it worth it? It depends how much they value their military superiority. For the person actually using the round, it is the most important thing in the world (just about).
So, since I intend to be the user, and I have already decided to lose a magazine or two should there be an adequately superior round. It isn't a big deal to me to worry about anything but which one is the best performer.
Not, what I want to do. I have a SCAR 16s. I want a round that can trump that but still gives me 30 rounds per magazine and generally fulfills the role of an intermediate rifle round (the same role as the 5.56x45). And, if we are talking about out to 200m then even the 7.62x35 is superior. Its main downside was that it couldn't reach out to 300m easily. It can definitely hit 200m... with more energy out of a shorter barrel.
Crow Hunter said:
They were trying to one-up the 5.56. 'Oh your round is 5.56? Well, we will make ours 5.45 AND put more powder behind it. How do you like that?' I'm certain that their engineers were doing a broad-stroke copy of our round. Remember, they were trying to extend the range of the AK. They saw the 5.56 worked and they probably figured only getting slightly smaller diameter with the same case length wouldn't accomplish that objective well enough. If you slapped a 6.8 or 6.5 diameter bullet in front of an AK case it wouldn't perform like a 6.8 SPC which is 6.8x43 not 6.8x39. I'm certain the ballistics of a 6.8x39 case aren't very ideal.
Crow Hunter said:
The 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .300 BLK, and 5.45x39 do not have the same range issues of the 7.62x39. The .300 BLK has the worst trajectory of those four rounds but it still beats the trajectory of the 7.62x39. The BC of 123gr 7.62x39 rounds is about .21 and the BC of the 125gr 7.62x35 is about .33. The .300 BLK retains its energy longer and flies further because it is more aerodynamic. The major benefit of the 7.62x35 is that it gets nice energy levels even out of very short barrels (but I know you aren't concerned with energy levels at all... I still want you to respond to my comment about the world's longest sniper kills) and because it has a better ballistic coefficient it still get's decent range out of short barrels. Out of 16" barrels it is still a very serviceable round. It won't really make it out to 300m very easily though. You would probably have to go 115gr, but even then I doubt it.
So, since the .300 BLK doesn't meet the range requirement then you still have to address the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 5.45x39.
Nix that. You already admitted to liking 5.45x39 so you are really down to 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel.
Crow Hunter said:
No, it wouldn't. If you maintained the same case dimensions as the 7.62x39 (save for necking it down more) You would have a stubby version of the 6.8 SPC bullet. They would not "fly the same" and it definitely wouldn't be as aerodynamic as the 6.8 SPC cartridge due to the more aerodynamic bullet and more powder behind it. I don't understand how you are still fighting me on this one. One of the guys you quoted recommended Dr. Roberts and HE recommends the 6.8 SPC.
Crow Hunter said:
I still don't understand why I have to explain why technologically inferior countries decided to copy the country that beat them. But, same thing here. They saw the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39 and put their own spin on it voi la the 5.8x42.
You do realize I'm not concerned about the caliber so much as the energy and terminal ballistics right? If there is something that can be a better intermediate round, I want it. 5.56x45 has been having some issues... others not so much. These rounds are competing for that throne. And, some of them are getting recommendations by knowledgeable people. From what you quoted to me, it seems like people with certain jobs don't want to adopt these rounds because they are heavier and they are forced to carry a certain number of them. That is an artificial penalty that wouldn't exist if we were simply trying to go for performance.
Crow Hunter said:
Hey, inexperienced, less technologically advanced people will take longer to answer the same questions. Also, they were just trying to one-up the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39. So, it required more than just duplicating the design. I thought you were an engineer? I shouldn't have to explain that to you. It seems like you are just banking on my ignorance to accept your ASSERTION (that you haven't supported) that since everybody made a round with the caliber between 5.4 and 5.8 that there is some sort of "magic" going on there. If the proof of effective terminal ballistics was there I would believe you. But, just because everyone does it, doesn't make it right, or the best, or the ideal. That is flawed logic.
Long story short on that one (whoops too late) just show me proof of how much more effective the terminal ballistics of the 5.56x45 is over these competing rounds and the evidence will speak for itself.
Crow Hunter said:
Passed up? Maybe they had a specific set of design goals and maybe they knew less about terminal ballistics then, than they do now. Maybe they were only going for weight savings. Who knows? As an engineer (which I assume you are... I remember you saying something like that), I believe you to be intellectually dishonest for not recognizing/admitting that even a slight fluctuation in design goals can drastically change the design of the end product. And, the skill of the design team will determine how well their objective was accomplished.
The 5.45x39 poison bullet "lore" stemmed from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RussianWP.jpg
It found a way to dump its energy. The 5.56x45 has been shown to not do this without changes in the bullet design (which I say... well you have to change the bullet design... might as well make a new cartridge made for that ideal bullet design.)
And, China did "improve" the design. They made the 5.8x42. Apparently they thought the 5.56x45 and the 5.45x39 weren't good enough for them. The Russians didn't think the 5.56x45 was good enough for them. They both had to answer the issue of matching the range of the 5.56x45... but they still went and made their own. All they had to do was make a slightly better design.
And now, with more knowledge gained on the subject, we seemed to have found a new design that might work even better.
Uhh... they did. They made different rounds that they believed to be superior to the 5.56x45. Again, I wouldn't put too much effort into trying to figure out why less technologically advanced nations copied and tried to upgrade a more technologically advanced country's caliber.Crow Hunter said:
Crow Hunter said:
Companies are already making the rounds. These companies are big companies. The machines are already there. You are dramatizing how much effort is required to do more of the same for these companies.
But, hey, lets even throw that aside. As an engineer, you should understand "diminishing returns." But, when it comes to "competing for survival" 1% is worth every penny. For engineers is it worth it? No. For the government is it worth it? It depends how much they value their military superiority. For the person actually using the round, it is the most important thing in the world (just about).
So, since I intend to be the user, and I have already decided to lose a magazine or two should there be an adequately superior round. It isn't a big deal to me to worry about anything but which one is the best performer.
Crow Hunter said:
Not, what I want to do. I have a SCAR 16s. I want a round that can trump that but still gives me 30 rounds per magazine and generally fulfills the role of an intermediate rifle round (the same role as the 5.56x45). And, if we are talking about out to 200m then even the 7.62x35 is superior. Its main downside was that it couldn't reach out to 300m easily. It can definitely hit 200m... with more energy out of a shorter barrel.
Crow Hunter
New member
I like this discussion, but, you keep cherry picking points and completely missing what I am saying.
ETA:
I think I finally get what you are looking for. You are the archetypical "Bester".
You have to have the Best of anything. You judge the "Best" based on public opinion rather than actually going out and trying it for yourself. You see it all in black and white. No shades of gray. Unfortunately, that can get expensive quick, especially since public opinion is so easy to sway with whatever the next big thing is.
One day, hopefully, you will gain some more experience and learn there truly is no "Best". Only a series of compromises.
I used to be one myself.
Good luck on your quest man. I hope you find it one day.
ETA:
I think I finally get what you are looking for. You are the archetypical "Bester".
You have to have the Best of anything. You judge the "Best" based on public opinion rather than actually going out and trying it for yourself. You see it all in black and white. No shades of gray. Unfortunately, that can get expensive quick, especially since public opinion is so easy to sway with whatever the next big thing is.
One day, hopefully, you will gain some more experience and learn there truly is no "Best". Only a series of compromises.
I used to be one myself.
Good luck on your quest man. I hope you find it one day.
Last edited:
semi_problomatic
New member
Couple points...
As to the 5.45:
Their "extensive testing"...if you're trying to find improved performance, but you have the AK platform with the x39 case, how many options do you have? And if general comrad so-n-so saw the report of how great the 5.56 is and he wants the same caliber...do you think he cares that the 6.6 is better?
Case in point, the 5.56 (and .22 cal idea) had been scrapped...twice...until general (crap, can't remember his name) got a report across his desk 2 years later and started it up again. After which it was almost scrapped again for the 6.6 after the 2 prototype AR barrels exploded in cold weather testing. Furthermore, the M249 SAW was origionally built in 6.6 and was later made to 5.56 due to logistics, not optimal caliber selection.
Cost:
You made good points about tooling and ammo cost, except for the fact that the military has already done it repeatedly. 30-06 to .308 to 5.56 being the easiest examples.
Not to mention, if the chose...say the 6.5. It has better ballistics past 1000m than the 7.62x51. You could effectively replace 6 weapon systems with 2, while only running off 1 cartridge. No more 240 and 249...they could be replaced with 1 system and accomplish both roles. The weapon system could be lighter than the 240, with ammo being lighter. While not being so heavy it couldn't be used as a SAW as well. (squad automatic weapon) The M4/16 and M14/21/24 could be replaced with 1 system. Maybe different barrels for each, like longer match grade for SDM/snipers vs shorter chrome lined for regular troops (or melonite all).
Superior performance:
If a round can extend performance from 200m to 500m+, with a slight increase in weight, and be more lethal in close ranges...then why not? Not to mention that soldiers are only issued 7 mags. They *can* get and carry more, if they want. If weight is the issue (and jesus it really is!) it doesn't lie so much in an extra 3 or 4 lbs for ammo, but the 30lbs jump in body armor. Where instead of adopting a better IBA, they instead chose to add more and more crap to it. Where, in my first deployment I had a vest, with two plates, a neck protector and a crotch flap (that we never wore) my next deployment saw me with 4 plates, two of which are ESAPI's now, shoulder and armpit kevlar, pluse built in padding in the knees and elbows with additional kneepads being a must have. And THEN they decided that wasn't enough (because now its impossible to get out of) so they made it into a giant jigsaw puzzle with a pullcord that holds it together. Why not just a plate carrier?
Especially if said cartridge is not only replacing 1 rifle, but essentially revamping the entire military's arsenal, easing logistics, and improving soldier's ability to kill the enemy...his ultimate goal.
It wouldn't have to be an immediate swap. A gradual change. First all 11 and 19 series. POGs and tradoc can get the M4's, 249's and 240's. Then disperse from there. 5.56 and M4's can still be used for BCT, OSUT, and AIT's so we're not training privates on the M16 platform and sending them to combat with the M4. (while being similiar, the LOP, weight, and shorter barrel do make a difference).
As to the 5.45:
Their "extensive testing"...if you're trying to find improved performance, but you have the AK platform with the x39 case, how many options do you have? And if general comrad so-n-so saw the report of how great the 5.56 is and he wants the same caliber...do you think he cares that the 6.6 is better?
Case in point, the 5.56 (and .22 cal idea) had been scrapped...twice...until general (crap, can't remember his name) got a report across his desk 2 years later and started it up again. After which it was almost scrapped again for the 6.6 after the 2 prototype AR barrels exploded in cold weather testing. Furthermore, the M249 SAW was origionally built in 6.6 and was later made to 5.56 due to logistics, not optimal caliber selection.
Cost:
You made good points about tooling and ammo cost, except for the fact that the military has already done it repeatedly. 30-06 to .308 to 5.56 being the easiest examples.
Not to mention, if the chose...say the 6.5. It has better ballistics past 1000m than the 7.62x51. You could effectively replace 6 weapon systems with 2, while only running off 1 cartridge. No more 240 and 249...they could be replaced with 1 system and accomplish both roles. The weapon system could be lighter than the 240, with ammo being lighter. While not being so heavy it couldn't be used as a SAW as well. (squad automatic weapon) The M4/16 and M14/21/24 could be replaced with 1 system. Maybe different barrels for each, like longer match grade for SDM/snipers vs shorter chrome lined for regular troops (or melonite all).
Superior performance:
If a round can extend performance from 200m to 500m+, with a slight increase in weight, and be more lethal in close ranges...then why not? Not to mention that soldiers are only issued 7 mags. They *can* get and carry more, if they want. If weight is the issue (and jesus it really is!) it doesn't lie so much in an extra 3 or 4 lbs for ammo, but the 30lbs jump in body armor. Where instead of adopting a better IBA, they instead chose to add more and more crap to it. Where, in my first deployment I had a vest, with two plates, a neck protector and a crotch flap (that we never wore) my next deployment saw me with 4 plates, two of which are ESAPI's now, shoulder and armpit kevlar, pluse built in padding in the knees and elbows with additional kneepads being a must have. And THEN they decided that wasn't enough (because now its impossible to get out of) so they made it into a giant jigsaw puzzle with a pullcord that holds it together. Why not just a plate carrier?
Especially if said cartridge is not only replacing 1 rifle, but essentially revamping the entire military's arsenal, easing logistics, and improving soldier's ability to kill the enemy...his ultimate goal.
It wouldn't have to be an immediate swap. A gradual change. First all 11 and 19 series. POGs and tradoc can get the M4's, 249's and 240's. Then disperse from there. 5.56 and M4's can still be used for BCT, OSUT, and AIT's so we're not training privates on the M16 platform and sending them to combat with the M4. (while being similiar, the LOP, weight, and shorter barrel do make a difference).
Last edited:
Crow Hunter
New member
Mine in red
Couple points...
As to the 5.45:
Their "extensive testing"...if you're trying to find improved performance, but you have the AK platform with the x39 case, how many options do you have? And if general comrad so-n-so saw the report of how great the 5.56 is and he wants the same caliber...do you think he cares that the 6.6 is better?They had to replace every single weapon in their arsenal. You can't just do a barrel swap or change uppers like you can with the AR. They had to make all new rifles. The AK design is easily scalable. Just look at the 12 ga shotguns and PSL's. All of which required stretching the receiver and increasing the magazine length. If I were comrade so-n-so and they showed me how they had gone to a 6.8 X 43 instead of that "pipsqueak" 5.56 round, I would have been more confident.
Case in point, the 5.56 (and .22 cal idea) had been scrapped...twice...until general (crap, can't remember his name) LeMay, I thinkgot a report across his desk 2 years later and started it up again. After which it was almost scrapped again for the 6.6 after the 2 prototype AR barrels exploded in cold weather testing. Furthermore, the M249 SAW was origionally built in 6.6 and was later made to 5.56 due to logistics, not optimal caliber selection. I remember reading something about that. Didn't they have an idea at that time to incorporate a 6mm SAW and the Stoner 63 and some other gun, all of the same caliber. It died for some reason then too. But I don't remember what that was honestly.
Cost:
You made good points about tooling and ammo cost, except for the fact that the military has already done it repeatedly. 30-06 to .308 to 5.56 being the easiest examples.I think there was more funding available to do it then though. I don't the the other toys out there were as available to suck up excess funding, nor was the technology available for force multipliers like the M68 CCO or Predator Drones or Gen 4 NODs and infrared aiming lasers. I think now there is going to have to be a very distinct and provable upgrade of a significant enough magnitude for us to make the change. Otherwise it will be just like the M4 PIP versus the new carbine. They are going to keep PIP'ing until the next big improvement. I figure that when/if the LSAT is proven out, the new round will probably be of a different caliber/construction and most likely faster than the current 5.56.
Not to mention, if the chose...say the 6.5. It has better ballistics past 1000m than the 7.62x51. You could effectively replace 6 weapon systems with 2, while only running off 1 cartridge. No more 240 and 249...they could be replaced with 1 system and accomplish both roles. Could they though? Can you get AP/API performance out of a 6.5? Remember, it isn't all about soft target interdiction. We might not always be fighting smelly bearded men in man dresses. One day our opponents may be similarly equipped to our own forces. If that happens, we may need other rounds. Can the 6.5 do all the things that 7.62 can? I don't know.The weapon system could be lighter than the 240, with ammo being lighter. While not being so heavy it couldn't be used as a SAW as well. (squad automatic weapon) The M4/16 and M14/21/24 could be replaced with 1 system. Maybe different barrels for each, like longer match grade for SDM/snipers vs shorter chrome lined for regular troops (or melonite all).It sounds really good on paper, but does it pan out in reality? I had a similar idea that I was going to just use all AR rifles for all my shooting needs and I sold off my really nice light weight, quick handling Browning Abolt only to find out that .308 ARs are HEAVY and akward for the type of hunting that I like to do. And a .22 AR doesn't replace my .22 Magnum for 100 yard muskrat shots without disturbing the neighbors real bad. (5.56 rifles make people come out on the porch and see what is the matter.
Superior performance:
If a round can extend performance from 200m to 500m+, with a slight increase in weight, and be more lethal in close ranges...then why not? Most likely cost, that and the idea that there are already weapons available in the MTOE of most units that can cover this range and it doesn't require a literal Act of Congress to get enacted with all the wrangling, contract fighting, interservice bickering, that everything else seems to generate. Just look at all the ruckus over uniforms...Not to mention that soldiers are only issued 7 mags. They *can* get and carry more, if they want. If weight is the issue (and jesus it really is!) it doesn't lie so much in an extra 3 or 4 lbs for ammo, but the 30lbs jump in body armor. Where instead of adopting a better IBA, they instead chose to add more and more crap to it. Where, in my first deployment I had a vest, with two plates, a neck protector and a crotch flap (that we never wore) my next deployment saw me with 4 plates, two of which are ESAPI's now, shoulder and armpit kevlar, pluse built in padding in the knees and elbows with additional kneepads being a must have. And THEN they decided that wasn't enough (because now its impossible to get out of) so they made it into a giant jigsaw puzzle with a pullcord that holds it together. Why not just a plate carrier?Dude, I don't know how you guys do it. I just have an Eagle 6 mag chest rig with an admin pouch with light/leatherman/min binocs/oil bottle and that is bad enough. I sometimes load up with my "bugout bag" and I really FEEL that quick. I can't imagine an IBA AND all that other stuff you guys have to carry too. I couldn't do it. I am a wimp.
Especially if said cartridge is not only replacing 1 rifle, but essentially revamping the entire military's arsenal, easing logistics, and improving soldier's ability to kill the enemy...his ultimate goal.If it really works, it has my vote. I just look at all the historical opportunities and failures and I can't help but wonder is it really because all these countries of the world are that dumb that engineers that can design and develop the SR71, Predator Drones, M1Abrams 120 mm gun haven't been able to figure out what the best round is, or is there something I am missing?
It wouldn't have to be an immediate swap. A gradual change. First all 11 and 19 series. POGs and tradoc can get the M4's, 249's and 240's. Then disperse from there. 5.56 and M4's can still be used for BCT, OSUT, and AIT's so we're not training privates on the M16 platform and sending them to combat with the M4. (while being similiar, the LOP, weight, and shorter barrel do make a difference). I agree, phased implementation is the only way to go, but who knows how long that will take. How long has it taken just to get the M4 to all line units?
warbirdlover
New member
#1 .300 Win Mag
#2 .270 Win.
Absolutely the best rounds ever created for target or hunting.
Both of these in a bolt action rifle also...
#2 .270 Win.
Absolutely the best rounds ever created for target or hunting.
Both of these in a bolt action rifle also...
best
"Best" is a dangerous word. Best for what purpose? Best in what way?
To get the best answers, you have to qualify a bit more than not at all.
I'd go with the 5.56 (.223 Remingtion) for most shooting.
Very accurate at distances out to 1000 yards, easy and cheap to load. Lots of fine firearms available for it.
Pete
"Best" is a dangerous word. Best for what purpose? Best in what way?
To get the best answers, you have to qualify a bit more than not at all.
I'd go with the 5.56 (.223 Remingtion) for most shooting.
Very accurate at distances out to 1000 yards, easy and cheap to load. Lots of fine firearms available for it.
Pete
I believe the experimental cartridges (they weren't all the same) developed for the SAW was 6mm and from what I read, barely more powerful than the 5.56 (and hardly any larger in caliber). But the projectile was twice as heavy. My reference doesn't give overall length but from the photos, it looks longer than a 5.56.
I think I mentioned already that the basic problem with the discussion (not with the cartridges) is that there is no exclusive definition of an intermediate rifle cartridge is. If you lined up all the cartridges for rifles you can think of and then pulled out the rimmed cartridges, you would have a lineup with no easily discernable categories. They would just go from small to big. As it happens, most of the world uses for military purposes will be found down at the small end for standard rifles and carbines. But some things are noteworthy from a design standpoint.
Most recent cartridges are relatively short in overall length. In comparision, even with all the other "standard" military rifle cartridges used for the last 115 years, the .30-06 was just about the longest, although that is merely of historical interest as far as this discussion goes. Given that the M1 rifle (and a few others) were chambered in .30-06, overall length may not be all that important after all and seeing as how the Russians still use the old 7.62x53R, even being rimless may not be such a problem either.
Ultimately, an intermediate cartridge is intermediate in power, not in bullet weight, not in length, nor in caliber (bore diameter). It is still an interesting fact that just about all military rifles today use cartridges that are relatively low powered, meaning under 2000 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy and more typically around 1500. All of the "small bore" cartridges on the last century in 6mm through 7mm were more powerful than that. So apparently the requirement that a rifle and carbine cartridge be no more powerful than could be managed in full auto or burst fire was something that everyone felt was necessary. In fact, the very first experiments with automatic rifles were, I think, with the 6.5mm Arisaka.
On top of all that, is the other fact that actual requirements for the military in the field do change over time and from place to place. That's why there seems to be a problem with rifles that were good in Southeast Asia but not so good in the Middle East. There is also the slight difficulty of getting everyone to agree on what is best for the troops in the field.
There may be something that is better right now for what they're doing right now but that won't make it the perfect cartridge.
I think I mentioned already that the basic problem with the discussion (not with the cartridges) is that there is no exclusive definition of an intermediate rifle cartridge is. If you lined up all the cartridges for rifles you can think of and then pulled out the rimmed cartridges, you would have a lineup with no easily discernable categories. They would just go from small to big. As it happens, most of the world uses for military purposes will be found down at the small end for standard rifles and carbines. But some things are noteworthy from a design standpoint.
Most recent cartridges are relatively short in overall length. In comparision, even with all the other "standard" military rifle cartridges used for the last 115 years, the .30-06 was just about the longest, although that is merely of historical interest as far as this discussion goes. Given that the M1 rifle (and a few others) were chambered in .30-06, overall length may not be all that important after all and seeing as how the Russians still use the old 7.62x53R, even being rimless may not be such a problem either.
Ultimately, an intermediate cartridge is intermediate in power, not in bullet weight, not in length, nor in caliber (bore diameter). It is still an interesting fact that just about all military rifles today use cartridges that are relatively low powered, meaning under 2000 ft.lbs. of muzzle energy and more typically around 1500. All of the "small bore" cartridges on the last century in 6mm through 7mm were more powerful than that. So apparently the requirement that a rifle and carbine cartridge be no more powerful than could be managed in full auto or burst fire was something that everyone felt was necessary. In fact, the very first experiments with automatic rifles were, I think, with the 6.5mm Arisaka.
On top of all that, is the other fact that actual requirements for the military in the field do change over time and from place to place. That's why there seems to be a problem with rifles that were good in Southeast Asia but not so good in the Middle East. There is also the slight difficulty of getting everyone to agree on what is best for the troops in the field.
There may be something that is better right now for what they're doing right now but that won't make it the perfect cartridge.
Here's more history to chew on.
I mentioned somewhere earlier that when the 7.62 NATO was introduced, it was considered to be something of an intermediate cartridge. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But as you all know, it came to be wide adopted throughout the West. It isn't a bad cartridge by any standard and it quickly became popular for non-military purposes as the .308 Winchester. But it failed the power requirement (that I just conveniently established) in that it was a little too powerful for burst fire in a 9-lb rifle, even though it was still used in that role just the same but with slight modifications to the rifle. FN rifles were made with heavier barrels and a bipod (actually the barrels are quite heavy). The M14 was also modified considerably and used as a squad automatic as long as the M14 was standard. The Spanish took another route.
The Spanish were using a verstion of the CETME rifle, from which, the story goes, the G3 was developed. Both are select fire. The Spanish used a reduced power for the 7.62 NATO, which is guess is referred to as the 7.62 CETME. I couldn't find (I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere) any specifications for the Spanish cartridge and Barnes makes no reference to it but I don't know if they're interchangable in the Spanish rifle. Anyhow, I suppose they had their own ideas about what they wanted, same as everyone else.
Another approach was to use a heavier infantry rifle for a full powered cartridge, one that is least likely to find favor among infantry rifle afficianados but that was essentiatlly what the Swiss did and perhaps the Japanese. The Japanese were greatly influenced by being on the receiving end of American firepower during the war, the Swiss probably uninfluenced by anyone. However, I have no idea what the Swiss taught with regard to full auto fire with their rifles and you may also note that they also now use the 5.56mm even though they are not NATO members.
Options abound.
I mentioned somewhere earlier that when the 7.62 NATO was introduced, it was considered to be something of an intermediate cartridge. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But as you all know, it came to be wide adopted throughout the West. It isn't a bad cartridge by any standard and it quickly became popular for non-military purposes as the .308 Winchester. But it failed the power requirement (that I just conveniently established) in that it was a little too powerful for burst fire in a 9-lb rifle, even though it was still used in that role just the same but with slight modifications to the rifle. FN rifles were made with heavier barrels and a bipod (actually the barrels are quite heavy). The M14 was also modified considerably and used as a squad automatic as long as the M14 was standard. The Spanish took another route.
The Spanish were using a verstion of the CETME rifle, from which, the story goes, the G3 was developed. Both are select fire. The Spanish used a reduced power for the 7.62 NATO, which is guess is referred to as the 7.62 CETME. I couldn't find (I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere) any specifications for the Spanish cartridge and Barnes makes no reference to it but I don't know if they're interchangable in the Spanish rifle. Anyhow, I suppose they had their own ideas about what they wanted, same as everyone else.
Another approach was to use a heavier infantry rifle for a full powered cartridge, one that is least likely to find favor among infantry rifle afficianados but that was essentiatlly what the Swiss did and perhaps the Japanese. The Japanese were greatly influenced by being on the receiving end of American firepower during the war, the Swiss probably uninfluenced by anyone. However, I have no idea what the Swiss taught with regard to full auto fire with their rifles and you may also note that they also now use the 5.56mm even though they are not NATO members.
Options abound.
Crow Hunter
New member
That comment made me remember something I saw years ago about the Swiss. They used to use a 7.5X55 Swiss caliber and they decided to change and they started doing testing. There was a documentary on it on PBS of all things, I think. I vaguely remember them interviewing one of the engineers in charge and discussing the development of the Patrone 90 and their reasoning for doing what they did. It mostly revolved around designing a round with "controlled upset" and enhanced fragmentation. I think they did testing of several different rounds while investigating changing from the Stgw 57/Sig 510. I could have sworn them talking about a 6mm-ish round, but it has been a long time since I saw that. I think I remembered that because I was looking at getting a .243 at the time...
I'll have to see if I can find that.
ETA: Or maybe it was designing a round that avoided the enhanced upset. It was one of the 2 anyway.
Last edited:
Old Time Hunter
New member
Poor selection offered, these are mostly "little" rounds. Not intermediate. Large is 458 Lott or any .40 cal and bigger able to fire 250+ grains at over 2200 fps. Intermediate to me is 129 to 249 grain with a caliber range from .250+ to < .40 with a velocity of any where from 1800fps to 3000fps. Anything below 129 grains and/or less than .250 cal, are the babies of the group.
So MY biggest group IS the intermediate, anywhere from a .257 Roberts up to a .375 H&H. Of that group, and being a free market advocate, it would appear that the venerable .30-30 and .30-06 are the two most common. Therefore, based on the market, THE BEST. All the rest are wannabe's based on personal choice.
AS for ME (wannabe), the best overall perfoming round for what I do with it, is probably the 6.5 X 55, loaded with a 140 grain BTSP @ around 2650 fps. But, my favorite intermediate round is the .375 Winchester with a 220 grain bullet @ 2300 fps. Nothing wrong with the .338, .348, 7mm, 8mm Mauser, .30-06, .308, or .270 all of which I consider "intermediate" rounds.
So MY biggest group IS the intermediate, anywhere from a .257 Roberts up to a .375 H&H. Of that group, and being a free market advocate, it would appear that the venerable .30-30 and .30-06 are the two most common. Therefore, based on the market, THE BEST. All the rest are wannabe's based on personal choice.
AS for ME (wannabe), the best overall perfoming round for what I do with it, is probably the 6.5 X 55, loaded with a 140 grain BTSP @ around 2650 fps. But, my favorite intermediate round is the .375 Winchester with a 220 grain bullet @ 2300 fps. Nothing wrong with the .338, .348, 7mm, 8mm Mauser, .30-06, .308, or .270 all of which I consider "intermediate" rounds.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
@Crow Hunter:
I like this discussion, too. I am not cherry picking points. Please state points you have made that I have not refuted. I will do anything to prevent you or anyone else from thinking I am being disingenuous.
Yes, I tried to explain this in my last post. Their engineers didn't know what the ideal cartridge was. They didn't understand terminal ballistics as they knew it today. So, they attempted to "one-up" the most successful cartridge at the time.
I will also ask you to not oversimplify what I am saying by using phrases like, "shocking the brain" in order to make me look ignorant. I said nothing about "shocking" the brain. I was stating that a large pressure wave of energy in your body can smash into any organ (the brain included) and cause damage to it. If you think that is wrong explain to me how that is incorrect.
I also (dis)like that in your example, you chose a whitetail (not a human) and a gut shot (which isn't a chest shot). If you shot a whitetail in the chest with a .243 I think you would be much more successful. But, earlier you said three chest shots were not adequate to stop a human. So, I don't understand why you chose this example to refute what I said.
You have successfully convinced me that these other rounds aren't ideal for replacing the 5.56x45 due to cost, weight, and inability to perform currently used tactics that require sustained fire.
I DO agree that the 5.56x45 can't be usurped. But, that isn't because it is the best or ideal intermediate round. That is due to how our military conducts war. We use tactics that favor light rounds so that we can carry a bunch and spray them down range whenever required. So, now that hurdle has been leaped. I still want to know what everyone's opinion is as being the ideal intermediate round.
No, of course not. I never EVER said that there was AN ideal cartridge "overall". There is no such thing. I clearly defined this ideal cartridge within the realm of performance expected of an intermediate rifle round. It really seems to me at this point we might have just not had this conversation at all. I defined all of the requirement, objectives, and choices a long time ago. But, you ignored them. You did convince me that a new cartridge for the military is not a good idea. But, that still leaves the initial question of which of these rounds is the ideal intermediate rifle cartridge.
I said that because a better cartridge with a better bullet design will be better than a 5.56x45 with a better bullet design. Again, you conceded that point being correct before. I do agree it is not cost effective. (Though, I don't know where you are getting that quote from, I don't doubt it, everyone likes to jack up their prices and rip off the government). But, that doesn't answer the ideal intermediate rifle cartridge question. Price is not a factor of performance.
Uh, they did. They made a different cartridge that they thought was better. Otherwise they would all be using the 5.56x45.
Because making the bullet "flip" isn't enough. Dr. Roberts thinks the 6.8 SPC is the ideal cartridge because it has the range, energy, and terminal ballistics required to make it a better round than the 5.56x45. You are the only one concerned with bullet design and bullets flipping. I'm saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and if you start with a cartridge/round that is a better candidate for increased performance in terminal ballistics already... bullet design should be spent working with that cartridge, not a worse candidate. Also, the .303 is a full-house rifle round. It obviously doesn't fall within the definition of an intermediate rifle cartridge. So, the fact that we haven't adopted the .303 British proves my point in the sense that they had different objectives/requirements in mind.
And yes, just to stop you, I agree that it is not cost effective. But, again, I am looking for best performance, not cheapest. I don't know why I have to restate the same points over and over and over.
I'm not arguing about it. I just don't want to knee-jerk jump to whatever caliber tickles my fancy. I like to be thorough. I'm not getting rid of my SCAR. I'm going to buy an AR in one of these calibers but I'm undecided (I intended this topic to help me with that decision... and it has!)
I actually hit the character limit lol! 22000.I had no idea! lol
I like this discussion, too. I am not cherry picking points. Please state points you have made that I have not refuted. I will do anything to prevent you or anyone else from thinking I am being disingenuous.
Crow Hunter said:
Yes, I tried to explain this in my last post. Their engineers didn't know what the ideal cartridge was. They didn't understand terminal ballistics as they knew it today. So, they attempted to "one-up" the most successful cartridge at the time.
Yes, I think they did sit around doing nothing. For the majority of those years there was no reason to change. And, change costs money. Also, like I said in my last post, present evidence that these rounds perform superior to some of the top-voted rounds on my poll and I would believe you. Simply saying, "Well everyone is doing it." doesn't hold any water. Also, like in my last post, I stated that these countries have a more primitive understanding of terminal ballistics than we do, and we haven't switched, so why should they? Also, the majority of our allies use rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO. If that bears any weight towards this discussion (which I believe it doesn't... because just because somebody does it... doesn't mean it is the best thing to do).Crow Hunter said:
I was wrong. I used the wrong BC for the 7.62x39. The BC should be .26. That gives them equal ballistics out to 300m. So they have the same trajectory but the 7.62x39 has more energy than the 7.62x35.Crow Hunter said:
I interpreted what you said earlier about how you would need three Howitzer round chest shots at 25 yards to be guaranteed to stop someone, to mean 'All of the rifle rounds under the sun have the same wounding potential assuming 3 are randomly distributed across the chest at 25 yards.' Which I still assert is insane. The vital organs you are concerned about hitting, are being hit, they are chest shots. I further assert that a higher energy round that successfully transfers its energy to the target can remotely damage blood vessels and other organs the bullet itself did not contact.Crow Hunter said:
I will also ask you to not oversimplify what I am saying by using phrases like, "shocking the brain" in order to make me look ignorant. I said nothing about "shocking" the brain. I was stating that a large pressure wave of energy in your body can smash into any organ (the brain included) and cause damage to it. If you think that is wrong explain to me how that is incorrect.
I also (dis)like that in your example, you chose a whitetail (not a human) and a gut shot (which isn't a chest shot). If you shot a whitetail in the chest with a .243 I think you would be much more successful. But, earlier you said three chest shots were not adequate to stop a human. So, I don't understand why you chose this example to refute what I said.
http://www.snipercentral.com/338.htm . If you don't visit the link again. I can't help you. But, it shows that the .338 lapua magnum has 1600-1700 ft-lbs of energy at 1000yards. Beyond that I can't help you.Crow Hunter said:
Wait, so NOW you think that a rifle only needs three chest shots to kill someone? I thought you needed 3 howitzer rounds to stop someone? You see, you can't flip-flop between your stance and mine. I was trying to tell you WAY earlier that 3 chest shots at 25 yards would be more than enough to stop someone. That was when you were trying to tell me that you could only keep three shots from a full-auto AK on a silhouette. I was trying to tell you that was enough. Then I asked you what caliber do I need to use to kill someone with three chest shots at 25 yards. You responded with a 155mm Howitzer round. So, because you won't admit it. I guess I have to state it for you. Rifles don't need to empty a magazine into someone to stop them. A chest shot seems to be enough to stop someone (as long as the energy level is high enough). Now, you are simply trying to "take credit" for my point by attempting to assert that the .338 lapua magnum @ 2700 yards has the same energy level as a 5.56 @ 300 yards. Now, like I said earlier, a 5.56x45 is so small that it will overpenetrate before delivering most of its energy. The .338 lapua magnum clearly has the diameter/surface area required to dump its energy into the target.Crow Hunter said:
Okay, well that is your guess. However, without finding out exactly where those bullets hit, the odds are drastically in my favor that those hits were shots to the chest (and vital organs are contained in the chest). So, why didn't/don't you believe that 3 chest shots are enough to stop someone (with a rifle caliber)?Crow Hunter said:
And, like I have said three times now, whether it is for military OR civilian use. Your main complaints for these rounds weren't performance related. The only one that stuck was weight. And, like I tried to explain to you three times before, a few of these rounds beat the 5.56x45 in the areas of performance with the only downsides being weight, cost, and availability. Again, only weight has anything to do with "performance" (which even then, it doesn't, it has to do with maneuverability). Cost and availability do not relate to performance. We would have to take cost and availability into account if we were arguing about efficiency. We aren't. We are talking about performance (which I did state multiple times before).Crow Hunter said:
When? When did they adopt a new intermediate cartridge and it failed to work for them?Crow Hunter said:
If you don't know the reason, then why are you arguing the point. Arguing a point, ignorant of the reasoning, merely devolves into, "Well, they didn't do it. And, that's why." Which accurately describes what you have been doing this whole time.Crow Hunter said:
Well, the 6.8 SPC is heavier, but it does have 30 round magazines and I don't think there is anything special about the bullet design of 6.8 SPC.Crow Hunter said:
What similar round? All of these rounds are fairly new and unique. They probably haven't been adopted because of cost like you said. However, I have stated multiple times that I am concerned with performance, not cost.Crow Hunter said:
I never said "high technology" (it would be "advanced technology"). I said that less technologically advanced nations copied a more technologically advanced nation because "they probably know something we don't". But, that is just an assertion I made. I don't know the thought process. But, we DO have evidence that some of the newer rounds recently created are more ideal rounds than those made 30-50 years ago (not a big surprise).Crow Hunter said:
And, I would assert (AGAIN) that is due to cost or lack of knowledge at the time. When those rounds were made we were trying to get away from the heavy .308 and .30-06 rounds. That was obviously the main objective, weight reduction. We weren't focusing on the ideal man-stopper for intermediate cartridges. And, again, if you don't understand the thought-process or motivation behind the decisions they made, then you can't accurately use them to draw conclusions from. The proof is in the pudding, and this "pudding" I speak of is terminal ballistics.Crow Hunter said:
Due to weight and cost. And, if you are referring to the 5.7x28 or the 4.6x30. They aren't exactly "catching on". Those rounds were developed under the assumption that armor penetration is all that is required for close-range weapons and they will make-up for their energy deficit with high rates of fire and large magazines. They were wrong. They ended up forcing the using to expend the entire magazine anyway to achieve good effect. My source here: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913Crow Hunter said:
Crow Hunter said:
You have successfully convinced me that these other rounds aren't ideal for replacing the 5.56x45 due to cost, weight, and inability to perform currently used tactics that require sustained fire.
Yup, and like I said, they didn't make a 5.56x45 (a copy) they put their own spin on it which required more time than simply "copying". They "copied" the size of the round because it accomplished two things that their rounds did not, weight reduction and increased range. But, they still came up with their own unique round. I'm just saying the caliber/mass of the bullet was copied.Crow Hunter said:
Use the phrase "shocking the brain" one more time and this conversation is over. I never used such a phrase. Inducing shock via a rapid decrease in blood pressure to vital organs does exist. The energy that is transmitted to the body from the bullet is conducted by the fluid in the body. When that fluid is moved forcefully enough it can cause remote damage to vital organs and blood vessels that were not directly contacted by the bullet. I used the word "sledgehammer" in a simile. Stop interpreting metaphors and similes as what I am literally saying. I do not believe a bullet inflicts damage in the same way an actual sledgehammer does. I was speaking in relative terms. In one of my previous posts I clarified that. But, you either forgot about it, or you are trying to infuriate me by intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying. You are an engineer, I would hope you could figure out how to understand metaphors and similes. Now do you understand what I meant by "sledgehammer" or "icepick"? Or do I need to explain it another way?Crow Hunter said:
In order to have an "ideal" (advantageous; excellent; best) anything you must define the objective you are trying to accomplish. I defined that goal several times. I wanted to see what everyone's opinion was for the best intermediate round. I defined what an intermediate round was. An intermediate round is more accurate, more powerful, and has a longer range than a pistol caliber carbine. An intermediate round has less recoil, a higher magazine capacity, and weighs less than a full-power rifle round (such as the .308, 30-06 et cetera). I defined it earlier. I made the goal clear. Therefore it is possible to hit an ideal round within those constraints. I was asserting that the 5.56x45 IS NOT it. Why? Because the definition of an intermediate round shows that it isn't in comparison to some of these other rounds.Crow Hunter said:
I DO agree that the 5.56x45 can't be usurped. But, that isn't because it is the best or ideal intermediate round. That is due to how our military conducts war. We use tactics that favor light rounds so that we can carry a bunch and spray them down range whenever required. So, now that hurdle has been leaped. I still want to know what everyone's opinion is as being the ideal intermediate round.
We are talking about the ideal intermediate round. The best terminal ballistics is a key factor in the process of determining which of these rounds meets that goal.Crow Hunter said:
And, I refuted your argument for better bullet design by saying that a better cartridge with better bullet design would still be superior to the 5.56x45 with a better bullet design. And, you conceded that point earlier. And, as far a shot placement... the "shot placement" will be the chest. You will not be "sniping" with your ACOG, red dot, or iron sights very much. Your point of aim will invariably be the chest. So, the shot placement will be equal between all of these rounds. That makes your point a moot point.Crow Hunter said:
Crow Hunter said:
No, of course not. I never EVER said that there was AN ideal cartridge "overall". There is no such thing. I clearly defined this ideal cartridge within the realm of performance expected of an intermediate rifle round. It really seems to me at this point we might have just not had this conversation at all. I defined all of the requirement, objectives, and choices a long time ago. But, you ignored them. You did convince me that a new cartridge for the military is not a good idea. But, that still leaves the initial question of which of these rounds is the ideal intermediate rifle cartridge.
Crow Hunter said:
I said that because a better cartridge with a better bullet design will be better than a 5.56x45 with a better bullet design. Again, you conceded that point being correct before. I do agree it is not cost effective. (Though, I don't know where you are getting that quote from, I don't doubt it, everyone likes to jack up their prices and rip off the government). But, that doesn't answer the ideal intermediate rifle cartridge question. Price is not a factor of performance.
Crow Hunter said:
Uh, they did. They made a different cartridge that they thought was better. Otherwise they would all be using the 5.56x45.
Crow Hunter said:
Because making the bullet "flip" isn't enough. Dr. Roberts thinks the 6.8 SPC is the ideal cartridge because it has the range, energy, and terminal ballistics required to make it a better round than the 5.56x45. You are the only one concerned with bullet design and bullets flipping. I'm saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and if you start with a cartridge/round that is a better candidate for increased performance in terminal ballistics already... bullet design should be spent working with that cartridge, not a worse candidate. Also, the .303 is a full-house rifle round. It obviously doesn't fall within the definition of an intermediate rifle cartridge. So, the fact that we haven't adopted the .303 British proves my point in the sense that they had different objectives/requirements in mind.
And yes, just to stop you, I agree that it is not cost effective. But, again, I am looking for best performance, not cheapest. I don't know why I have to restate the same points over and over and over.
Because of the link to a picture that I posted in my previous message. If you refuse to visit the links you are going to miss points in my argument. I will re-post it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RussianWP.jpg No, I don't know if they tested anything else. But, I don't know if they thought of the 6.8x43, 7.62x40, 7.62x35, etc. They could have not thought of those rounds because they were focusing on weight reduction, not terminal ballistics performance. Again, just because no one did it, that doesn't invalidate the idea. No-one thought the Earth was "round" for a long time. That doesn't mean it is an invalid idea.Crow Hunter said:
The XM25 doesn't fulfill the same objectives as an intermediate rifle round, so it is off-topic. I agree that developing other weapon systems that complement our inventory will yield higher returns than a slight upgrade to one facet of our inventory. No I don't know what DARPA is working on. However, I am talking about the ideal intermediate rifle round. You have already convinced me that due to current military tactics and the cost of the upgrade, it isn't a good idea.Crow Hunter said:
No, its for the best intermediate rifle rounds. Earlier you asked for what purpose and I answered that question in a flippant manner so I could move on in the discussion. I apologize for that.Crow Hunter said:
Crow Hunter said:
I'm not arguing about it. I just don't want to knee-jerk jump to whatever caliber tickles my fancy. I like to be thorough. I'm not getting rid of my SCAR. I'm going to buy an AR in one of these calibers but I'm undecided (I intended this topic to help me with that decision... and it has!)
I actually hit the character limit lol! 22000.I had no idea! lol
Crow Hunter
New member
Mine in red
I keep timing out before I get finished responding.
@Crow Hunter:
I like this discussion, too. I am not cherry picking points. Please state points you have made that I have not refuted. I will do anything to prevent you or anyone else from thinking I am being disingenuous.We are both typing English, but we don't seem to be speaking the same language.
My point is you are looking at and trying to refute each individual thing I say rather than looking at what I am trying to say.
Quote:
Yes, I tried to explain this in my last post. Their engineers didn't know what the ideal cartridge was. They didn't understand terminal ballistics as they knew it today. So, they attempted to "one-up" the most successful cartridge at the time.How do you know they didn't? How do you know that the cartridges that you listed are the "ideal"? Rounds that were similar to many on your list were and are available for testing. as well as data for those cartridges. Maybe you don't know any engineers from Russia, former East Germany, or China. They are just as smart as we are. The difference is they don't have the free market driving innovation that we do in West and the carryover technologies that those bring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
Yes, I think they did sit around doing nothing. For the majority of those years there was no reason to change. And, change costs money. Also, like I said in my last post, present evidence that these rounds perform superior to some of the top-voted rounds on my poll and I would believe you. Simply saying, "Well everyone is doing it." doesn't hold any water. Also, like in my last post, I stated that these countries have a more primitive understanding of terminal ballistics than we do, and we haven't switched, so why should they? Also, the majority of our allies use rifles chambered in 7.62 NATO.They do? If that bears any weight towards this discussion (which I believe it doesn't... because just because somebody does it... doesn't mean it is the best thing to do). I would argue that we still have a primitive understanding of terminal ballistics. Why do you think they have a more primitive understanding? What do we know now that we/they didn't know then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
I interpreted what you said earlier about how you would need three Howitzer round chest shots at 25 yards to be guaranteed to stop someone, to mean 'All of the rifle rounds under the sun have the same wounding potential assuming 3 are randomly distributed across the chest at 25 yards.' Which I still assert is insane. The vital organs you are concerned about hitting, are being hit, they are chest shots. I further assert that a higher energy round that successfully transfers its energy to the target can remotely damage blood vessels and other organs the bullet itself did not contact.
I was using hyperbole. If you shoot a rabbit with .40 S&W you will get similar results to what you are referring to. The only way I know to get similar results to that is to scale up to the same size relative. The only way to guarantee stopping is to damage vital organs, the only way to guarantee damage is to hit it. The human torso extends from the hips to the shoulders. The only organs that will result in instant incapacitation is brain, heart (after a few second) or spinal column. The heart is roughly the size of your fist, the spinal column is roughly the width of your thumb. Random distribution could mean 3 shots in these spots or it could be 3 shots in the lower intestine or liver/kidneys. While they might be ultimately fatal, but they can still effectively return fire. You are getting temporary stretch cavities and "remote damage" confused. There is a shock wave generate, just like when you slap water. But just like when you shoot a bullet into a lake, all the fish around where you shot, don't float to the top dead, the shockwave can't kill you. If the temporary stretch cavity is near flesh/organs that are inelastic and can't stretch, they will tear. The other big problem with the "shock wave" theory is that the largest organ/s in the chest cavity are the lungs. They are filled with air and won't conduct the shockwave any better than the atmosphere will. The human body's "solid" cross sectional area in the upper thoracic is actually smaller than you would think. We are full of a lot of hot air. Some more than others.
I will also ask you to not oversimplify what I am saying by using phrases like, "shocking the brain" in order to make me look ignorant. I said nothing about "shocking" the brain. I was stating that a large pressure wave of energy in your body can smash into any organ (the brain included) and cause damage to it. If you think that is wrong explain to me how that is incorrect.It isn't wrong. It is your interpretation of it that is wrong. Unless something is loaded past it's elastic yield point, it will just stretch and return to it's previous shape. There are pressure waves that can do that. But it is something along the lines of artillery and other extremely energetic explosions, not something that can be contained in a gun.
I also (dis)like that in your example, you chose a whitetail (not a human) and a gut shot (which isn't a chest shot). If you shot a whitetail in the chest with a .243 I think you would be much more successful. But, earlier you said three chest shots were not adequate to stop a human. I didn't say it wasn't adequate. I said it wasn't a guarantee. Big difference there.So, I don't understand why you chose this example to refute what I said.I chose that because I don't shoot people. Eastern Whitetail deer torsos are similar in size to slightly smaller than a human. I have seen many deer shot with a .243 or similar rifle round that were not hit in the upper thoracic cavity that ran off and were never found. If what you are saying is true, hitting the torso of the deer, should kill it. But it doesn't, you have to hit the heart/spine/head for an instant stop. You can also break both shoulders and take them down, but often it takes them a while to bleed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
If it drops from 4,600 to 1,700 in 1000 yards and we assume that it only loses 1/2 that additional energy by the time it reaches 2,700 yards, it has similar energy to a 5.56 at 300 yards. That should have required 3 COM shots, right?
Wait, so NOW you think that a rifle only needs three chest shots to kill someone? This is an example of the cherry picking I am talking about.I thought you needed 3 howitzer rounds to stop someone? You see, you can't flip-flop between your stance and mine.
Quote:
Okay, well that is your guess. However, without finding out exactly where those bullets hit, the odds are drastically in my favor that those hits were shots to the chest (and vital organs are contained in the chest). So, why didn't/don't you believe that 3 chest shots are enough to stop someone (with a rifle caliber)?Stopping and killing are 2 different things. Someone can be killed due to blood loss after having their liver or kidney perforated. They will still be able to function for hours until they bleed out. Stopping someone requires hitting brain/spinal cord/heart. Nothing states if these people dropped instantly in their tracks of if they crawled off and died hours later.
And, like I have said three times now, whether it is for military OR civilian use. Your main complaints for these rounds weren't performance related. The only one that stuck was weight. And, like I tried to explain to you three times before, a few of these rounds beat the 5.56x45 in the areas of performance with the only downsides being weight, cost, and availability. Again, only weight has anything to do with "performance" (which even then, it doesn't, it has to do with maneuverability). Cost and availability do not relate to performance. We would have to take cost and availability into account if we were arguing about efficiency. We aren't. We are talking about performance (which I did state multiple times before).f all you are talking about is damage to the target. Obviously higher energy rounds are better. Why not just carry an assault rifle in 50BMG? Everything is a compromise.
When? When did they adopt a new intermediate cartridge and it failed to work for them?It is on LF.net. There were limited combat trials/evaluations of the 6.8SPC in theater in Afghanistan several years ago. It was ended. No one is saying why.
If you don't know the reason, then why are you arguing the point. Arguing a point, ignorant of the reasoning, merely devolves into, "Well, they didn't do it. And, that's why." Which accurately describes what you have been doing this whole time.You don't know the reason for why it was withdrawn. Why are you arguing for the superiority of it? You are arguing that something is better without any data on actual use, only test data.
Well, the 6.8 SPC is heavier, but it does have 30 round magazines and I don't think there is anything special about the bullet design of 6.8 SPC.That is incorrect. The SPC uses a 115gr bullet with a hollow tip. It makes it more likely to upset in the human body and fragment. A similar round is used in the 77g mk 262.
What similar round? All of these rounds are fairly new and unique. They probably haven't been adopted because of cost like you said. However, I have stated multiple times that I am concerned with performance, not cost.They have similar ballistics to 7.62X39 and/or the 6mm Lee, the .280 Enfield, the .276 Pedersen and possibly others. They aren't identical, but they are in similar performance envelopes.
I never said "high technology" (it would be "advanced technology"). I said that less technologically advanced nations copied a more technologically advanced nation because "they probably know something we don't". But, that is just an assertion I made. I don't know the thought process. But, we DO have evidence that some of the newer rounds recently created are more ideal rounds than those made 30-50 years ago (not a big surprise).Do some research on the .303 that the British worked on in WWII. Aluminum/wood tips, where the center of gravity was further towards the rear causing the round to upset earlier. Bullet manufacturing technology isn't really very advanced. I can usually tell by looking how one is made, I would imagine someone versed in bullet design could do it much more quickly. But there are some recent advancements that could vastly improve all rounds. Some of which have been incorporated into the new SOST rounds. But the point I thought you were trying to make is that the larger diameter rounds a superior because they dump energy better. If that was the case, no matter the bullet construction the other rounds should be better.
And, I would assert (AGAIN) that is due to cost or lack of knowledge at the time. When those rounds were made we were trying to get away from the heavy .308 and .30-06 rounds. That was obviously the main objective, weight reduction.No it wasn't. Do the research. It was based on studies that showed most infantry combat occurred at 300m and in and a "full power" round wasn't necessary and a smaller round would allow a soldier to carry more rounds and still be just as effective. We weren't focusing on the ideal man-stopper for intermediate cartridges.And we still aren't. The M855 round isn't designed that way now. It is designed as a multipurpose round. Some penetration/some man-stopping. Likely any new round will get the same treatment and potentially reduced stopping power to improve penetration against hard armor. And, again, if you don't understand the thought-process or motivation behind the decisions they made, then you can't accurately use them to draw conclusions from.This goes both ways you know....
Due to weight and cost. And, if you are referring to the 5.7x28 or the 4.6x30. They aren't exactly "catching on". Those rounds were developed under the assumption that armor penetration is all that is required for close-range weapons and they will make-up for their energy deficit with high rates of fire and large magazines. They were wrong. They ended up forcing the using to expend the entire magazine anyway to achieve good effect. My source here: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19913
Good research. Keep doing it. That wasn't what I was talking about though.
Yup, and like I said, they didn't make a 5.56x45 (a copy) they put their own spin on it which required more time than simply "copying". They "copied" the size of the round because it accomplished two things that their rounds did not, weight reduction and increased range. But, they still came up with their own unique round. I'm just saying the caliber/mass of the bullet was copied.Maybe it was. Or maybe not. Maybe they did the testing and found out those rounds offered superior performance for their criteria that splitting the difference between 7.62 & 5.56 didn't.
Use the phrase "shocking the brain" one more time and this conversation is over. I never used such a phrase. Inducing shock via a rapid decrease in blood pressure to vital organs does exist.Yes, that shock is cause by blood loss, not by pressure waves. Completely different mechanism. The energy that is transmitted to the body from the bullet is conducted by the fluid in the body. When that fluid is moved forcefully enough it can cause remote damage to vital organs and blood vessels that were not directly contacted by the bullet.You are overestimating the effect and underestimating the rapidity in which it dissipates. I used the word "sledgehammer" in a simile. Stop interpreting metaphors and similes as what I am literally saying. I am not interpreting it literally. The effects between the 2 different rounds are not a large as the sledgehammer/icepick analogy. I am pointing that out.I do not believe a bullet inflicts damage in the same way an actual sledgehammer does. I was speaking in relative terms. In one of my previous posts I clarified that. But, you either forgot about it, or you are trying to infuriate me by intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying. You are an engineer, I would hope you could figure out how to understand metaphors and similes. Now do you understand what I meant by "sledgehammer" or "icepick"? Or do I need to explain it another way?
In order to have an "ideal" (advantageous; excellent; best) anything you must define the objective you are trying to accomplish. I defined that goal several times. I wanted to see what everyone's opinion was for the best intermediate round. I defined what an intermediate round was. An intermediate round is more accurate, more powerful, and has a longer range than a pistol caliber carbine. An intermediate round has less recoil, a higher magazine capacity, and weighs less than a full-power rifle round (such as the .308, 30-06 et cetera). I defined it earlier. I made the goal clear. Therefore it is possible to hit an ideal round within those constraints. I was asserting that the 5.56x45 IS NOT it. Why? Because the definition of an intermediate round shows that it isn't in comparison to some of these other rounds.I haven't seen anything that you have set in stone. You seem to wander around based on whatever cherry picked point you want to argue at the moment. Many of the rounds you have listed would be better for one type of scenario than another but that same round would be inferior in a completely different scenario.
I DO agree that the 5.56x45 can't be usurped. But, that isn't because it is the best or ideal intermediate round. That is due to how our military conducts war. We use tactics that favor light rounds so that we can carry a bunch and spray them down range whenever required. So, now that hurdle has been leaped. I still want to know what everyone's opinion is as being the ideal intermediate round. I can only give you my experience (5.56/762x39/.308) in a military style rifle. With that, I go for 5.56 for my uses. Hopefully I have pointed you in a direction that you can find the answers you are looking for.
And, I refuted your argument for better bullet design by saying that a better cartridge with better bullet design would still be superior to the 5.56x45 with a better bullet design. And, you conceded that point earlier. And, as far a shot placement... the "shot placement" will be the chest. You will not be "sniping" with your ACOG, red dot, or iron sights very much. Your point of aim will invariably be the chest. So, the shot placement will be equal between all of these rounds. That makes your point a moot point.Have you ever hunted anything? Anything at all?
I said that because a better cartridge with a better bullet design will be better than a 5.56x45 with a better bullet design. Again, you conceded that point being correct before. I do agree it is not cost effective. (Though, I don't know where you are getting that quote from, I don't doubt it, everyone likes to jack up their prices and rip off the government). But, that doesn't answer the ideal intermediate rifle cartridge question. Price is not a factor of performance.It might not be for you, but it is for me. If I can't afford to train with it to before proficient, it doesn't do me much good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crow Hunter
Why didn't they?
Uh, they did. They made a different cartridge that they thought was better. Otherwise they would all be using the 5.56x45.They thought it was better, but they didn't test it at all?
Because making the bullet "flip" isn't enough. Dr. Roberts thinks the 6.8 SPC is the ideal cartridge because it has the range, energy, and terminal ballistics required to make it a better round than the 5.56x45Look at his drawings of how the bullet performs in test media.. You are the only one concerned with bullet design and bullets flipping.Do more research. I'm saying that there is more than one way to skin a cat,Yes there is, unfortunately it is limited in the realm of military ammo, not so much in civilian/LEO though. and if you start with a cartridge/round that is a better candidate for increased performance in terminal ballistics already... bullet design should be spent working with that cartridge, not a worse candidate. Also, the .303 is a full-house rifle round. It obviously doesn't fall within the definition of an intermediate rifle cartridge. So, the fact that we haven't adopted the .303 British proves my point in the sense that they had different objectives/requirements in mind. Look into why they were looking to increase performance.
I'm not arguing about it. I just don't want to knee-jerk jump to whatever caliber tickles my fancy. I like to be thorough. I'm not getting rid of my SCAR. I'm going to buy an AR in one of these calibers but I'm undecided (I intended this topic to help me with that decision... and it has!)Good for you and get some time behind it. Let me know what you get. I am looking at potentially getting a upper in either 6.8/.300 Blackout or maybe even .30 AR. But then again, I might just get another Abolt in 7mm08.
I keep timing out before I get finished responding.
Strafer Gott
New member
I like rounds I can get hits with. m-16 w/5.56 got to be the easiest thing to pull hits with ever. Non-scientific perhaps, but anything past 600 by most guys is area fire.
I realize that for military uses, evaluation of a cartridge by its performance on live deer may not give a good picture of a cartridge but it is apparently unavoidable. Frank Barnes generally remarked on the usefulness of most cartridges by their suitability for game hunting.
Frank Barnes designed a few cartridges himself, you know, and I already mentioned how he may have originated the big-bore AR-16 concept. Another one was the .308x1.5-inch Barnes, which he lists as a wildcat. But I think he had other goals in mind rather than for military uses.
Someone asked if the engineers were just sitting around for 30 years after 1945. They may have been working on other things and they in fact may not have been working on anything. Just after a war is when arms developments take a back seat to just about everything, unless it be something on which huge advances were made during the war that made other things obsolete, like jet planes. I don't think anything like that happened during the war. But when engineers go to work, they generally have something in mind and often as not, are not exactly open to alternative ideas. They may or may not arrive at the same point if different teams are working in different countries. Besides, tactical concepts and expected theaters of operations enter into the matter as well. Americans are slightly handicapped because we are always ready to go to war anywhere at any time. I never understood why our potential enemies ever think otherwise.
Frank Barnes designed a few cartridges himself, you know, and I already mentioned how he may have originated the big-bore AR-16 concept. Another one was the .308x1.5-inch Barnes, which he lists as a wildcat. But I think he had other goals in mind rather than for military uses.
Someone asked if the engineers were just sitting around for 30 years after 1945. They may have been working on other things and they in fact may not have been working on anything. Just after a war is when arms developments take a back seat to just about everything, unless it be something on which huge advances were made during the war that made other things obsolete, like jet planes. I don't think anything like that happened during the war. But when engineers go to work, they generally have something in mind and often as not, are not exactly open to alternative ideas. They may or may not arrive at the same point if different teams are working in different countries. Besides, tactical concepts and expected theaters of operations enter into the matter as well. Americans are slightly handicapped because we are always ready to go to war anywhere at any time. I never understood why our potential enemies ever think otherwise.
iMagUdspEllr
New member
Crow Hunter said:
Honestly, we have discussed so many different things that I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your main point is that due to weight, recoil, cost, and currently used tactics on the battlefield... it is a bad idea to replace the 5.56x45 with one of these cartridges. I agree with you on that.
For similar reasons (weight, recoil, and cost) you also feel that these rounds are inadequate compared to 5.56x45. I am tentative to agree with you on that.
I don't see why dropping a couple of magazines from your current set-up isn't a viable option. Some of these rounds offer better range, energy/terminal ballistics, and maintain the same capacity as the 5.56x45. I understand that you dispute the energy/terminal ballistics advantage... but that still leaves the advantage of range. And, because the only thing you see is the increase in range vs the increase of cost (which I'm not concerned about), weight, and recoil. It isn't worth it. Fair enough *shrug*.
I will address the rest of your points. But, I want to just get this much clear, because you are concerned with me talking about each point rather than "the big picture". So, I figured we should square this away first. And, then move on from there. I will address all of the points you presented, though.