Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikthestick

New member
The men who make the decisions are never or at least seldom required to use the equipment they choose for others. The man who designed the AK47 did his share of combat. Here is what I want to discuss. The 223 is more accurate than an AK47 and has advantages over it, yet the AK47 seems to the the cartridge all other assault rifles are compared to. The AK47 rifle could be made to more accurate. One of the best AR cartridges I have read about is the 1.5”Barnes (not adopted by the military). If the requirement is small light and deadly it fits the bill. About 1980 I read a Guns n Ammo article in which the author made a very good case for 7mm being the ideal calibre Cartridges of the World states a 6.8 SPC has 2808ft/sec with a 115gr bullet. OAL = 2.26”ideal I think, certainly pretty damn good. CoW states it was designed to give more effectiveness in short 16.5” barrels, But doesn't say the velocity is from such a barrel. My guess is if a 20”barrel was used you could expect 2500+ in a 16.5”barrel.
What I do not understand is if a cartridge like the Barnes is required why is it so long in coming. As an amateur ballistic expert here are my thoughts. Expert means someone who knows more than most Brits you'll ever meet.

1. Take a powerful pistol cartridge lets say 38 super/9mm parabellum.
2. Lengthen it and put more powder in (powder suited to longer barrel)
3. Make bullet of same weight(115/124gr) in standard (used to be about .30) rifle calibre and nice sharp point for better ballistic coefficient.
4. Neck down the case to suit bullet.
5. Lengthen case and adjust bullet weight until the required ballistic performance is met.
You can disagree with my list all you want, but it doesn't answer the question why did it take so so long to come up with the 6.8 SPC.
 
What I forgot to say

The 6.8 SPC in a heavy barreled squad automatic, which might have also have a longer(24") barrel would do the job of an M60.
 
I think the 5.56 is the optimal cartridge, you have to consider economy along with weight and all the other requirements.
 
Didn't say 5.56 wasn't good. But I think if special forces use 6.8 there is a reason. For the sake of economy the 5.56 case could be used to produce something better, when something better is required.
 
The gap between the intermediate cartridges and .308 could be improved upon, but I think performance gains wouldn't be enough improvement to justify outfitting entire armies. Special forces is a small niche with different budgets.

The last I heard, taking on good armed with current invwntories was still a bad idea.
 
I am no expert, and probably still know more than most Brits...(I kid, I kid, because I love...), but...

I think that the advantages of a new caliber are marginal enough that none will be adopted widely until there is a significant technological innovation (i.e., caseless ammo or something).
 
Take the rifle out of the picture and just talk about the cartridge. It started with the Germans. You already know that. But you also know they didn't use it as a squad automatic or attempt to use it as a long range weapon. Their original name for the weapons wasn't even an assault rifle; it was a machine pistol, or as the British were calling them at the time, a machine carbine. They (probably) thought of it as a more powerful sub-machine gun, a weapon everyone seems to have forgotten about by now but at the time was considered in important addition to the firepower of an infantry squad or section.

Even the submachine gun took time to develop a following and it took combat experience to make true believers of people. Funny how that happens.

Time marches on (some to different drummers); and nothing happens overnight. Not without a struggle, either. Even the Soviets fooled around with other ways of doing things, too, in the middle of a hard war, too, so their developments should not be dismissed, but which I doubt anyone is. Likewise, none of these developments happen in a vacuum; other parallel developments (such as in machine guns and grenade launchers) are being advanced all the while. It's easy to miss the big picture.

So why did it take so long to arrive at the 6.8 SPC? Maybe we took the long way round. Maybe we haven't arrived at all; perhaps the 6.8 SPC is just a wide spot in the road.

Your original description, by the way, sounds a lot like a .30 carbine. Although it is contempory to the 7.92k cartridge, it had in theory a different purpose and also a different background altogether. The biggest difference is the lack of a spitzer bullet, probably.

You know, some of these discussions have too many "either-ors" and not enough "ands".
 
1. Take a powerful pistol cartridge lets say 38 super/9mm parabellum.
2. Lengthen it and put more powder in (powder suited to longer barrel)
3. Make bullet of same weight(115/124gr) in standard (used to be about .30) rifle calibre and nice sharp point for better ballistic coefficient.
4. Neck down the case to suit bullet.
5. Lengthen case and adjust bullet weight until the required ballistic performance is met.
Click to expand...

You just basically described the 7.69x39...I'm not saying it's the best by any means, but that's what I pictured with your criteria above...

The "best" is purely a subjective opinion. What's best to one, is not best to another. What a Marine thinks is best, may be different than what an Army Ranger thinks is best...
 
Kill an enemy and take one off the battlefield. Wound an enemy and take three off the battlefield. That is the philosophy of some of the people who favor smaller calibers.
As far as the 6.8 it is not the end all be all, some think it is. I like the creedmore over the 6.8 and if the requirements are that it fits the AR15 platform I would pick the 6.5 grendel.
 
Didn't say 5.56 wasn't good. But I think if special forces use 6.8 there is a reason.
Click to expand...

The reason the special forces don't like the 5.56 is because of lack of penetration. My son-in-law is in Airborne Assault at Fort Hood and while in Iraq they discovered that often the Enemy would pop up from behind mudwalls and the 5.56 did not penetrate the walls, but 7.62x39 would easily go through the wall putting them at risk. That's when they started having two guys per squad with M14.

I think the reason the special forces did not want to use the 7.62x39 is because American ammo could find its way to the enemy. So for safety sake is better that our guns don't use the same ammo as our enemies.

One thing you have to remember is that the 5.56 was intended for jungle fighting in Vietnam where lack of visibility was a big factor and they were shooting through foliage. For desert fighting the 7.62x51 is the calibr of choice, unfortunately the military is stuck with the 5.56 and the soldiers will use whatever they are given.

If you want to see the next generation of combat rifle it will be a 7.62x51 with low recoil. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXJCmeX-5Tg
 
Last edited:
if a cartridge like the Barnes is required why is it so long in coming.
Click to expand...

Because the 223/5.56 works just fine and there is no reason to change it.

The 223 is lighter, and as a guy who was infantry when infantry walked, Lighter is Good.

But the debates will go on, and we'll be using the 223 well after I'm gone.
 
I think the 5.56 is the optimal cartridge, you have to consider economy along with weight and all the other requirements.
Click to expand...

I experienced the mud wall problem in Afganistan... 5.56 is simply not up to the job IMHO... But using the 22 as the basis for a combat round was never a great idea..

However if I could get a caseless 6.8 mm assault rifle, with a simple and reliable feed system that would be a dream... Seems like it would probably weight about the same as 5.56 but hit with something more befitting a battlefield environment..

I would even be open to a under/over caseless system were at the flick of a switch the soldier could select 5.56 or 6.8 and the appropriate barrel... but for heaven sake it really ticks you off when the BG you should have downed runs off behind the mud wall that you couldnt shoot through...

ps Keep in mind soldiers do not get the 5.56 ammo choices civilians do... we are much more limited...
 
Last edited:
I think the reason the special forces did not want to use the 7.62x39 is because American ammo could find its way to the enemy. So for safety sake is better that our guns don't use the same ammo as our enemies.
Click to expand...
We outfit our allies the afghans and previously the iraqis with 7.62x39 and plenty of that has trickled down the black market to insurgents and the taliban.
Besides with 7.62x39 you can use battlefield pickups or resupply from allied local forces that don't use 556 or 762 nato.
 
One thing you have to remember is that the 5.56 was intended for jungle fighting in Vietnam where lack of visibility was a big factor and they were shooting through foliage.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but this is just not correct. The military was looking for a lighter, smaller caliber rifle long before Vietnam ever entered into the picture and if shooting through foliage was what they were looking for, a slower heavier projectile would have been in order.
 
Wow the stuff people wanna talk about.

.223 period

why is it the best? becuase that is what the military uses and it is cheap.

around 2500 ft/sec with hollow points is devastating! anything bigger, then you are not shooting two legged critters anymore are you.
 
I thought the question was about an Assault Rifle Cartridge. The M16 is considered an assault rifle, the M14 and previous M1 Garand and 03 Springfield were considered Battle Rifles not assault rifles. Maybe the question should be: should we go back to a Battle Rifle or stay with an assault rifle? Or find something in between? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle
 
The "guy" that designed the AK, didn't design the round.

He was given the round and told to design a rifle around it.

From what I have read, the "Special Forces" guys who are using the 5.56 like it just fine.

Some of the guys that really thought the 7.62X51 was the thing to have, decided that it wasn't all that it was cracked up to be after using it for a while in combat.

I am paraphrasing here but it was basically: "We still had to shoot the Haji 2-3 times to drop him, the difference was that now we had less rounds to do it and it was harder to do the same 2-3 rounds as quick as we could with the 5.56."

Some of the guys like it because it WILL go further and hit with more authority outside of the effective range of the 5.56 & the 7.62X39. But most of them would rather have that power in a belt fed and keep the 5.56 in the maneuver elements to close and kill.

There is a fairly interesting account of Pat Rogers and a VC Mortar team and his M14 on LF.net. He wasn't very impressed with the gun or the round.:eek:

There are also quite a few reports on the Mk17 (SCAR Heavy) and the M14. It really runs contrary to what most forums report.;)

I encourage you to get an account on Lightfighter.net and see what people who actually DO THIS are doing and saying.

DON'T POST, JUST READ.

If you don't take my advice and you do post, be prepared to get hammered unless you have the creds to be making any comments and they WILL check up on you. Stolen Valor is not something that is looked kindly upon there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top