Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
My ammo preference is always for FMJ bullets you can trust them to make holes in the target. The AP 69gr 5.56mm (S109) is even better.
The SCAR 17s is great but you lose the advantage of lighter ammo(if you need/want it).
I have read of caseless round being available not sure how far developement and reliability has come. Solid propellant has to be robust. It's bound to make everything else obselete overnight. The rounds I read about were even less than 5.56cal.
Had a silly idea, With a caplock you add powder then ball then cap then BANG.
"A rifle with 3 mags for caps powder and bullets. The trick would be to load all 3 in the correct order for firing. Perhaps it's not impossible but no easier than making a caseless round.
The 6.8 still looks good. I thought when the AR15/M16 was introduced it was a Special Forces weapon then everyone wanted one.
 
6.5 Grendel.

- Same AR platform
- Double the bullet weight
- Near twice the ballistic coefficent
- 900 ft lbs at 400 yards (twice the M855/62gr 5.56)

Beats the 6.8SPC all hollow from the muzzle on......

Other than this, I have no strong opinion. ;)
 
In reality, if we took a poll, asking 20 people, you'd get pretty close to 20 different answers.

I do remember a poll of end users (that being grunts) in Iraq. 60% said they were happy with the M4/M16.

But let the games continue, they wont change anything or any opinions.
 
After all is said and done we would have filled more body bags with our boys over the last 40+ years if we were using anything other than the 5.56. It is not perfect in every situation, but works very well in 95% of the situations where our guys need a gun. Other more powerful rounds might be an advantage the other 5% of the time, but would be at a disadvantage to the 5.56 the rest of the time.
 
Crowhunter
Didn't say the AK guy designed the round. Not sure if your whole post was aimed at me.
I hate having to repeat this bit I'M A BRIT.
I do have knowledge of firearms and despite the embarrassment I don't mind admitting I have little experience in shooting, and zero experience in a combat situation.
Basically I'M DISCUSSING MY INTEREST AND LEARNING FROM YOU AT THE SAME TIME:D
 
Mehavay
I don't Know the barrel length for the MV of the 6.8 SPC. Haven't done lots of calcs either, but based on SD .281 Vs .229. My gut feeling is there may not be a great deal in it at the muzzle but with every yard that difference will become more significant.
 
I would say something that preforms similar to the .270 in terms of ballistics but dosen't have a long action case. (sound like anything you've heard of???)
 
mehavey:

6.5 Grendel.

- Same AR platform
- Double the bullet weight
- Near twice the ballistic coefficent
- 900 ft lbs at 400 yards (twice the M855/62gr 5.56)

Beats the 6.8SPC all hollow from the muzzle on......

Other than this, I have no strong opinion.
Click to expand...

At least you admit it's just opinion.

The Grendel's ideal bullet weight is 120-130gr, the SPC is 95-110gr, last I checked, that's no where near double. BC isn't the be-all end-all that you think it is, and out of a 16" barrel, the only one left with 900 ft-lbs at 400 yards is the 120gr 6.8 SPC:

68-65_energy.jpg

68-65_trajectory.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

Starting off with problem orientation should probably come before you try to derive answers. The .223 is a cartridge. An AK47 is a firearm. The man who designed the AK47 didn't have to use his gun in combat. While he did see combat, it was as a tanker and mechanic.

Properly loaded, the 7.62x39 cartridge can be very accurate. The M16 certainly tends to be more accurate than the AK47 for numerous reasons, but they are mechanical issues between the guns and not because of the cartridge.

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.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that now you have so many folks going to the shorter 10" barrels.
 
Well, Mik, the British themselves were not idle all this time.
In 1913 they devised the .280 Enfield. A full power "battle rifle" in a day of long range infantry rifle doctrine, it took the calibre as the optimum combination for great range and bearable recoil. It was overcome by WW I and the need to concentrate on .303 production.
They tried again in 1948 with the .280 EM-2 for the short 7x43 cartridge. This more powerful and longer ranged than the 8x33 and 7.62x39 but still lighter to hump and kicking less than .303 and .30-06. Not powerful enough for the US in the NATO standardization programme, they ended up with the 7.62 NATO FAL, the SLR.

If the 5.56 NATO is so bad, why did the Russians go to 5.45mm and the Communist Chinese to 5.8mm service rifles? They had watched us in Viet Nam and no doubt tested M16s captured there. There must be SOMETHING in favor of the .22 calibre range that the Internet Ballisticians are missing.

There is a good site at
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
Written by a Britisher, too.
 
5.56 all the way...and 62 gr green tip is a nasty little bugger...ranges around here won't let you fire the green tip because it can/will damage the back stop

I think there's a new black tip 5.56 the military uses that's even nastier...penetration of steel at 300 and 500 yards
 
Last edited:
I love these discussions.

The current/former grunts say light is good, and a trained rifleman with 5.56 is effective...except when it's not.

The marksmanship guys say 6.Whatever or .30Something is the best thing going because of heavy bullets/higher BC/smaller groups or, to paraphrase my favorite of all time, 'we won two world wars with .30-06'.

Some of us will do research and say 6.8 because SF used it.

Regimental command sergeants major of 1st BN, 23rd MNSOIR (Mall Ninja Special Operations Infantry Regiment) will say the new HK MP1000 belt-fed .50 BMG sub-machine gun with integral suppressor is the only way to kill modern Nazi-Zombie-Terrorists that plague the shopping centers of today.

Sometimes, we fall in to one or more (and hopefully not the last) of these categories.

Why so much focus on tools? Why not more focus on training? Let's hit the range instead of ballistics tables. Based on my share of firefights, the M855 will, in fact, kill human beings. It may or may not go through mud walls, it won't drop an angry sasquatch in one shot to the elbow, and it's not an effective round against uparmored cheetahs either, but does the job on people when properly utilized. So will .308. So will .50BMG. Once someone discovers the the Magic Cartridge that weighs nothing, does everything, has a seven-figure BC and can penetrate anything found in this solar system, let me know. In the meantime, why bother. We didn't discuss issues with the ammo we had, we just trained with it and became proficient over time. 99% of the cartridges' shortcomings could be overcome by proper utilization of the brain housing group.
 
I believe all above mentioned cartridges are effective, and i believe the balance between is more effective. There is only one downside to one of the cartridges, which is the .223 in its 100yd yaw period which happens a small portion of the time which is why like i said, a balance of a squad with multiple calibers is probably ideal.
 
At least you admit it's just opinion.
The Grendel's ideal bullet weight is 120-130gr, the SPC is 95-110gr...
Click to expand...

But the ground truth comparison for both is the 5.56 (2x all the way)

BTW:
I'm running 6.5 Grendel/2,570fps w/either the 123 Scenar or the 123SMK out of a 20" (Std M16) barrel -- commercial loads
(I also actually load/shoot these things)
The optimized performance out of the same barrel w/ the 6.8 is with a 113gr /2,550fps (I'll give it 2,570 for grins)

Any change in barrel length will be matched by powder changes, so neither has a velocity advantage one way or other

The objective is military usage, so FMJ and/or M-BTHP is fine

Bottom line is that the ballistic coefficient (and PPC ballistic case efficiency) of Grendel/123 compared to that slim-case/lighter/fatter 270 bullet in the SPC eats its lunch the minute the SPC projo leaves the muzzle.

This is a systems problem.
:)

I live in NoVA, so a 6.5G/6.8SPC "shoot off" through the chronograph at various ranges for bullet drop/remaining energy at choose-your-projo weight might be interesting :eek: I'll bring the ham sandwiches. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Why so much focus on tools? Why not more focus on training? Let's hit the range instead of ballistics tables. Based on my share of firefights, the M855 will, in fact, kill human beings. It may or may not go through mud walls, it won't drop an angry sasquatch in one shot to the elbow, and it's not an effective round against uparmored cheetahs either, but does the job on people when properly utilized. So will .308. So will .50BMG. Once someone discovers the the Magic Cartridge that weighs nothing, does everything, has a seven-figure BC and can penetrate anything found in this solar system, let me know. In the meantime, why bother. We didn't discuss issues with the ammo we had, we just trained with it and became proficient over time. 99% of the cartridges' shortcomings could be overcome by proper utilization of the brain housing group.
Click to expand...
Very well said.
 
I find that the .223 is a nasty little cartridge, sometimes lighter is nastier. Sometimes heavy is better.

special ops is a moot point, thier numbers are so small whatever they use is a irrelevant.
Nobody ever mentions specific sf units because they're outsiders. No sf soldier would be here on the net saying what they use.

Airborne is not sf. Rangers are not sf. Spec ops is not really sf but sf is included in spec ops. Some spec ops throw mre's to rufugees or consult with local leaders about fixing wells, or procuring a generator.
 
We didn't discuss issues with the ammo we had, we just trained with it and became proficient over time. 99% of the cartridges' shortcomings could be overcome by proper utilization of the brain housing group.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we are in Afghanistan, where YoungSon has repeatedly reported that the Taliban are smart,
well disciplined, and have learned to start engagements at the magic 400m point.

Guess where the soldier's main battle rifle has now run out of gas for immediate/effective engagement?

`Can't overcome that with anything but more range in more hands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top