Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridges

S

Sarge

New member
Let's try this again, sans the acrimony.

I suggested in a similar thread that a 7.62x39 Imp would be a useful midrange MBR cartridge. Remington, it would appear, had a similar idea with their 30AR which gives respectable external ballistics from the basic AR platform.

slide0016.gif


I am duly impressed and I don't impress easily, particularly when it comes to 'new' cartridges.
 
I've got an upper built to handle the .30RAR.

I found out about it some months ago and built an upper for it during winter. I've only put a few hundred rounds through it but I'm quite impressed too.

I'd say its an all around better round for actual use than the .223. Sure its not a .308/7.62NATO and its not as flat shooting as the .223 but it hits harder and makes a bigger hole. Add that to the fact that it feeds reliably in an AR (something 7.62x39 is not known for) and its a keeper.

Now sure there have been other .30 cal cartridges created for the AR (.30 Whisper, .30 Fireball etc.) but this cartridge has the backing of a major ammunition company. Frankly I'm not a fan of Remington ammo at the current time but that could change if their quality control got better.

In regards to this cartridge and its performance though I like it. Harder hitting than a .223 (more like a 30-30) and shooting a .30 cal bullet (more to my liking than a .223) so its more suitable for deer and other medium/larger medium game (even large game at closer ranges) and much more suitable for social work.

The only real drawback is increased ammunition weight - a 30rd mag will weight more than double that of a .223/5.56 but well I hefted steel 30rd AK mags around for 10+ years I can deal with the weight of the .30RAR mags.
 
Thanks for the first-hand report, Hansam. I've had my issues with Remington ammo as well; but I have to give them credit for crowding .308 performance from the AR platform.

I also couldn't help but notice how close the 30RAR is in performance to the new breed of 'reduced recoil' loads available for the .308/30-06 class of cartridges.
 
Any new ammo will have to be something the girls can shoot without getting an "owie".
Click to expand...

I can say from hands on experience that the recoil of the .30RAR isn't bad at all. Not close to the .308 (I have a DPMS LR-308 as well) and actually more like a softer loaded .243WIN.

My 13yr old daughter (5'6" and 100lbs) shot my AR with the .30RAR and asked me if that could be her deer gun this season. I'd say the girlies won't get an "owie" from this.

I rather like this round - more so than other more reasonable rounds I've tried like the 6.5Grendel and 6.8SPC.
 
Im sure its a wonderfull cartridge, but I cannot see where it would have a practical advantage over the current 7.62x51 Nato.
 
The only advantage Tex, is that it adapts well to the standard M16 platform. That's it. It would not replace any existing 30 cal weapon system. It would simply put a more powerful service rifle in the hands of the American soldier, with the least expense, R&D and logistics aggravation to his benevolent Uncle.

It probably makes too much sense to have any hope of being adopted.
 
Sarge

That makes sense I guess, but the AR 10 can handle the 7.62x51 Nato.
I guess it would be cheaper in the long run to re-chamber the M 16 rifles already in service.
Or just keep it as is, and make sure each squad has atleast one M14.:D
 
From the link you provided, Shrek, the MR762A1’s Suggested Retail Price is $3,995.

I'm pretty sure de gub'mit can probably contract 30AR uppers for $399 or less, which means they could produce 10 30AR's on lowers they already own, for the price of one HK.

The M14 does have supply-line support TX, and she ain't a bad rifle at all. I suspect the bean counters would favor using half the rifle they already got.

Guys I am ALL about getting these folks the best personal weapons we can. My suggestion of the 30AR is just one way to get there. Hell I'd love to see them ALL qualified on pistols and given the option to supply their own, if DOD won't do it.
 
Thinking outside the padded cell here, but I've always toyed with the idea that it's not the actual "round" being used that has to change but enhancing the terminal effect of what we have as it enters the target. The bullet itself, any bullet, is still basically the same projectile being shot out of slingshots thousands of years ago. However, an enhanced .223, for example, containing a small synthetic explosive would definitely add a devastating edge on any battlefield. It's a feasible, cost effective alternative to a complete refit, I would think. Just a thought.
 
*Dons old ACUs with SGT stripes still velcroed on the chest*

My view is that what the Army needs more than anything, and believe me I think an M-4 in 6.8 SPC would be awesome, is to reevaluate it's training paradigm.

Less time on gender sensitivity and more range time. Less time on Powerpoint briefings concerning your G.I. Bill benefits and more time instilling a warrior mindset. A Sergeant Major of the Army that is more concerned with markmansip training than the type of shoes you can wear in your PT uniform would be a great start.

That being said, the 5.56mm is a fine round, it's light, accurate, and fast. however, the FMJ bullet propelled by said round is what grinds my gears.
 
Why is it when ever a new round that is AR capable comes out it's all the sudden touted as the latest and greatest US service cartridge. Come on now. While lots of cartridges see very limited use throughout out armed forces none will replace the .223 anytime in out future.

Also, I'd like to see where it's a "Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridge". Bettin the military hasn't thought twice about it, maybe not even once, and the new round is actually named after a civilian semi auto firearm.

LK
 
one small problem....

However, an enhanced .223, for example, containing a small synthetic explosive would definitely add a devastating edge on any battlefield. It's a feasible,..
Click to expand...

The one small problem with that idea is that the US military is bound by our govt to abide by the Geneva Convention, the Hague Accords, and a few other treaties and rulings, whether we were actual signatories to them, or not.

We cannot use hollowpoints against soldiers of enemy combatant nations,let alone exploding smallarms ammo. Now, while we are not legally bound (by our own govt) from using HP on terrorists, its still not done. We use "match" ammo, which works fine, and while it does have a hollow tip, its not "hollowpoint" ammo.

And, exploding ammo has NO benefit (or legal availablity) for private citizens,so forget any sales there. If the govt doesn't buy it, no one else can, or will.

The real solution to any, and all problems with the 5.56mm caliber is simply to use a larger bullet. This, however creates its own problems, but does work.

The real problem isn't that the rounds don't work, it is that we have a generation raised virtually without any real world experience about how bullets do what they do (outside of neighborhood crime, not much experience with guns at all), and trained by videogame "shooter" games where a single hit ALWAYS puts the zombie (etc) down.

Determined men have been known to ignore .30 cal hits (including fatal ones) for a surprising amount of time in combat. Smaller bullets don't often perform as well, even through they may be going faster. There is no free lunch, there is no magic bullet. Period.

Going to small caliber explosive rounds might have a significant result incombat, but they are political poision to any govt that authorizes them. And, on top of that, assuming they worked correctly, 100% of the time, (and they won't,nothing made by man ever does), how do you handle those times when you don't want to blow up the enemy? Taking prisoners is easier when they are lightly wounded, and more useful if they are alive....
 
He was just propsing a new cartridge. Not saying it was going to be. And you must've missed the boat, cause the 6.8 is being used by military (doesn't that make it a military cartridge?) Maybe not by big army, but there are guys getting paid by uncle sam with US Army written on their uniforms using it. The military has been looking at other cartridges and testing them, so it is looking pretty hard at changing out the .22 mag. Maybe by the next 5-10 years. Easily in our lifetime.

The geneva convention has nothing to do with the types of rounds used. Just how to treat pow's.
 
SPEMack618 nailed it. We will have the cartridge/caliber debate until the XM5000 Anti-Personnel Laser Blaster gets fielded, and my sources tell me that the program is having contract issue. (HA!). However, he hit the nail on the head: it's not an equipment issue, it's not even a training issue, both of those are symptoms but not the disease. The disease is the mindset. Once we stop prioritizing self-esteem over combat proficiency, the rest of the pieces will follow.

Army FM 27-10 specifically states that the employment of arms, material or projectiles designed to cause unnecessary suffering is prohibited. Ergo, in accordance with a bunch of JAG types who set these types of rules, 'hollow-point' ammunition is prohibited. However, 'open-tip' ammo is fine because the open tip is there to enhance flight ballistics.

Po-TAE-to, po-TAH-to.
 
Logistics isn't as hard as it used to be, and supporting multiple calibers is not the nightmare that was feared at one time.

I don't see 5.56 being phased out anytime soon, and I would not be in favor of it. The combination of the AR platform and the 5.56 cartridge is awfully effective for so many roles.

But I could certainly envision a use for an alternate cartridge in the hands of a Designated Marksman, or similar future role. The 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC have a lot of promise in an AR-15 platform.

Going to an AR-10 platform opens up the possibilities a bit. For reaching out with authority beyond 600 meters, 7.62x51 is always an option, but honestly there are other interesting cartridges that would chamber in an AR-10. Any projectile from 6mm to 7mm coming out of a 308 case is going to have some promise... 243, 6.5 Creedmore, 260 rem, 7mm-08, or even a .277 bullet worked into a 308 brass (6.8-08?). All of these have the potential for better ballistics than the 308.

Personally, I have always thought that the 243 has a lot of promise as an AR-10 cartridge. With 95 grain bullets, muzzle velocity is similar to 5.56 with 55 grain bullets, and the down range ballistics are far superior to any 5.56 round. At 300 meters, the 243 has more energy than 5.56 does at 10 feet. But since the bullet is only 95 grains, it is only somewhat heavier than 5.56. A soldier could carry a reasonable amount of 243 ammo.
 
I'd prefer NOT carrying anything .30 cal. Mainly because of weight.

I'm really curious about 6.5 and 6.8 due to the weight savings compared to .308, and the supposed increase in power from 5.56mm.

For all saying it's not a big deal: Back in Vietnam, and Desert Storm when you wouldn't wear armor, or you'd wear the light flak vest, might not be a big deal. The IOTV (standard Army body armor.... which weighs MORE than the previous IBA) weighs just shy of 30lbs. +3L of water, +GPS, +radio, +kneepads, +helmet, +M4 with attachments (can quickly become a 10 or 11lb rifle), +ammo (nope, a good infantry squad-leader doesn't let his joes skimp by and just carry the 210 rounds basic load), +Night vision, +extra batteries for everything, +flashlight, +aid kit, +flex cuffs, +signalling devices, +smoke, +grenades and/or flashbangs, +flares, +any extra equipment.... we're talking 60+lbs of gear BEFORE we add in a 3day pack, or god forbid a rucksack. Exit 7.62 NATO (.308WIN) from the competition. it is a beautiful monster of a round, but not for line infantry uses.

Point of the story is that soldiers are HEAVY now a days, and being light and nimble is what keeps you alive in combat best. This is a TON of non ditchable gear, and a soldier's last concern should be his ammo being too heavy to carry all the other stuff he has to.

Any replacement round has to be light enough for a line infantryman to carry 7 (9-10 if your squad leader insists you be PROPERLY loaded for a fight) 30round mags. Enter 6.8 & 6.5 I think they have potential, but the problem would be overhauling logistics.

curious about this "Light .30 cartridge", but highly skeptical.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top