universal infantry cartridge possibilities/chatter/etc.......

E

Evil Monkey

New member
Is it possible to have a round on par with the energy of a 7.62x51mm or less, yet have a bullet drop of no more than 2 feet at 500 meters?

Could a round like this even exist? Knowing there are a bunch of high velocity hunting rounds out there, I figure I might not be far off.

Reading about the historical attempts at universal infantry cartridges over the years, it seems like there's not really been a widespread focus on weight reduction, controllability, capacity, or even lethality. Rather, there seems to be a common theme of trying to have a universal cartridge that can shoot as flat as possible out of a few but extremely versatile firearms, such as a true one-for-all GPMG, and an infantry rifle that also doubles as a squad or platoon based DMR with a switch of an optic.

I just want to know if such a conventional brassed cased round already exists.
 
If you sight in any cartridge at 400yards its drop will be no where near 2 feet at 500 yards.

Far more factors than just ballistics come into consideration for a combat round, like gun size and weight, reliability, feeding, ammo weight, coast and ease of manufacture.

6.5 grendel seems to be the bees knees at the moment, but I think 243 winchester or 260 remington would be a pretty good all purpose round.

Questions like this have been beaten to death and the general consensus is that there is no magic bullet that solves all problems.
 
I'm not sure that the focus has been on finding a flat shooting round at all, so much as other factors. At the same time, I'm also sure that nowhere near as much research used to be done in selecting a cartridge as there is now, for various reasons.

For one thing, until semi-automatic rifles became common, controlability was a non-issue, although some light machine guns were supposedly "hard kicking," though I'll have to take someone else's word for that. After what we now call intermediate cartridges were introduced after WWII, there were new issues and different approaches to the problems, not that much was done about it in many cases.

One interesting thing about infantry small arms is the different combinations of weapons that different armies have used over the years. Presumably they represent someone's (or some committee's) idea of what would work best for them at the time from what was available and which they could afford. In other words, everything was going to be a compromise and would also be a reflection, presumably, of how they conceived infantry tactics just then. It more or less still works that way.

The Germans, for instance, built everything around their light machine gun. Apparently not a lot of emphasis was placed on the individual rifleman, although they did attempt to produce a semi-automatic rifle and eventually did come up with an innovative rifle, the MP-44. It was so different they renamed it, assault rifle, or more literally translated, storm rifle. In the meantime, they and everyone else used liberal numbers of submachine guns. Submachine guns were not looked upon as a decent weapon for infantrymen by conservative generals, supposedly (I've only personally known one general but he was air force). Combat experience changed the opinion.

Everyone knows that the American attitude is that the rifleman is lord of the battlefield and can hit targets at 500 yards from a standing position and even further from a prone position. He therefore needs a weapon and cartridge combination that enables him to do that. At least, that's the ideal and the theory and it seems like it is the generally held opinion of a lot of those who post here. Some even wonder why we don't still use bolt action Springfields for that reason.

Naturally, that is all backed up by a squad automatic and there has been even more diversity of equipment and tactics on that point. Historically, no matter which army is considered, the squad automatic appears to be the most important infantry weapon because it provides real firepower right where it's needed the most. And historically, they have tended to be highly thought of by the soldiers at the sharp end. Provided they work and some were basically battlefield failures for one reason or another.

I've been curious why so many smaller than .30 caliber cartridges were used in the first half of the 20th century. However ballistically superior some may have been, they didn't seem to offer much of an advantage over their larger versions and in fact, both the Italians and the Japanese attempted to change to large calibers, although they picked a bad time to try it. The Americans nearly did, too, when the Garand was being developed. Then, 20 years later, small cartridges were all the rage and still are. What ever happened?
 
If you sight in any cartridge at 400yards its drop will be no where near 2 feet at 500 yards.
Click to expand...

well yeah but I'm talking about a straight shot all the way to 500m. If you zero out a rifle to 400+m that has a steep trajectory, you may end up with excessive elevation under that distance. We can zero a 45acp to 400-500m but what would the elevation be under that distance, like 30 feet above the target at the peek? lol:D

I've been curious why so many smaller than .30 caliber cartridges were used in the first half of the 20th century. However ballistically superior some may have been, they didn't seem to offer much of an advantage over their larger versions and in fact, both the Italians and the Japanese attempted to change to large calibers, although they picked a bad time to try it. The Americans nearly did, too, when the Garand was being developed. Then, 20 years later, small cartridges were all the rage and still are. What ever happened?
Click to expand...

I don't want to get too deep into this, because it's been done to death on this forum. Basically the reason for smaller rounds is both, lack of use beyond 400m+ and high hit percentages.

The Italian and Japanese switch to larger calibers were mainly for the poor bullet design for the smaller 6mm cartridges of the period.

Smaller rounds than the contemporary always were an option that was derailed at the last moment.

---The US could've had the 276 pederson but at that time period, felt that it was underpowered and kept up with the 30'06. Remember the military doctrine was that a soldier is supposed to hit targets under stress with iron sights at up to 1,000 meters.:rolleyes:

---The next blunder was with the soviets. They initially wanted intermediate round in between 6mm and 7mm for better trajectory, but ended up sticking with the 7.62x39mm design due to logistical issues. It had something to do with the factory machines that make 7.62x54R also being able to make 7.62x39mm.

---Next is with the 280 brit and the US obsession with 1,000m shooting. We got 7.62x51mm instead.

---Then we experimented with the 6x45mm and 6x50mm SAW cartridges. Both were dropped due to logistical issues and having three rounds in circulation. The 6mm SAW rounds seem to have been one of the best universal cartridges ever devised due to its long and slender bullet design, giving it great energy retention and very flat trajectory.

---Once again I believe in the early 1990's the Russians experimented with a very high pressure 6mm cartridge that was to be used in a infantry rifle/DMR and universal machine gun, but didn't adopt it due to obvious cost issues.

So with that out of the way, does anyone know of a round in existance that doesn't drop more than 2 feet at 500m? :D
 
Which do you want? More bullets or more powerful bullets? Bigger bullets means less rounds per magazine. Smaller bullets means more rounds per magazine. Maybe someone should make exploding 5.56 bullets and then elect a president who will change the Geneva Convention to permit their use in war.

The bottom line is that if you want a more powerful bullet in a smaller package, that bullet is going to have to do something other than simply expand and convey the shock-energy of the cartridge it was fired from.
 
By the way, weren't the British also armed with FN FALS in 7.62 in the falklands?
Click to expand...

Kind of...

The Brits were armed with L1A1, licensed semi-auto copies of the FAL, produced in dimensions that were more suitable for imperial measurements. The Argentinians were armed with the FN FAL, produced in metric measurements and with full auto capabilities.

Unrelated: the FN FAL and licensed Stg.58 has a nicer and tighter finish IMHO, they go for over 1.5 to twice the price of a L1A1 over here :(
 
How much do the common full size military cartridges drop at 500 yards anyway?

It used to be, when men were men and were much better shots (I assume), that rifles had adjustable sights to allow for different ranges. That was even true in the latter days when I was in the army and training with an M14, although that was too advanced for lowly basic trainees.

Actually, the 7.62 NATO is pretty close to a good all-round cartridge, as far as it goes. No one has suggested making it do instead of a .50 caliber and pistols were still issued when the M14 was in the arms room and so were submachine guns. But carbines were history. The M14 was even used as a squad automatic for a while, too, at least in Europe. They had a selector switch, a bipod and a special stock. I have no idea what the users thought of them but they were nothing like a BAR. But as originally issued, the BAR did not have a bipod. Apparently the designer, whoever he was, did not see it the way others saw it later. The BAR was still being used in the 1970s in the National Guard.

A basic problem, no matter what the cartridge is used, is that some of the requirements, at least as the original poster sees it, are contradictory. Naturally, designers for the last 111 years have struggled with the same problems. One of them is reducing weight without decreasing controllability. But that's what you get when you expect one thing to do the job of two things. A bad compromise, sometimes.

Maybe other things are more important.

Soldiers on the ground don't worry so much about just having a single weapon that uses a single cartridge for everything. I think they worry about other things more, things usually taken for granted. Things like reliability. Things like suitability for the role. You will notice that having a variety of weapons within a platoon doesn't make the infantryman's job harder. It makes it a little easier. Not easy, just a little easier. And if he can't handle it, he does just what you do. He gets on the phone and calls for help.

How do you suppose they see things on the other side?
 
Is it possible to have a round on par with the energy of a 7.62x51mm or less, yet have a bullet drop of no more than 2 feet at 500 meters?
Click to expand...
Yes. But there are more considerations in weapon design than energy and trajectory of the round. How about a 22-caliber bullet traveling around 3,200 fps, fired from a lightweight gas-operated rifle, with enough energy remaining at 500 yards to pierce the average infantry helmet. Would that work for you?
Reading about the historical attempts at universal infantry cartridges over the years, it seems like there's not really been a widespread focus on weight reduction, controllability, capacity, or even lethality.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? This is exactly what the focus has been for the past 50 years. Light weight, high velocity bullets for lethality; low recoil for controllability; high capacity magazines or belt-fed for firepower. Thank you Mr. Stoner.
The Germans, for instance, built everything around their light machine gun. Apparently not a lot of emphasis was placed on the individual rifleman,
Click to expand...
Actually, the highly-trained individual rifleman was the core of the German army. Since the size of the German standing army was limited by the Versailles Treaty, the WW2 German army designed a light machine gun (MG38, later MG42) that used the standard rifle ammunition (7.92X57mmIS, for logistics reasons), and used it in support of small squad tactics (Sturmtruppen = assault units = shock troops) to disrupt the large unit tactics common at that time, to allow for lightning-fast field tactics (Blitzkrieg= lightning war) to overwhelm larger, slower-adapting units. Highly-trained individual infantrymen were highly mobile and very adaptive, able to capture and utilize infrastructure and turn enemy strategic moves against them, as opposed to typical European battlefield tactics developed in WW1 that called for heavy artilery bombardments followed by massive infantry assaults by relatively poorly-trained foot-soldiers. The success of these tactics surprised everyone (even the Germans), and radically changed warfare as we know it.
In other words, everything was going to be a compromise and would also be a reflection, presumably, of how they conceived infantry tactics just then. It more or less still works that way.
Click to expand...
Everything is a compromise, dictated by the mission and operational constraints. I suppose someday someone will develop a weapon that weighs mere ounces, can fire millions of rounds without reloading, kills instantly, has no recoil, and will turn into a ham sandwich at the end of the day after all the enemy soldiers have surrendered.:rolleyes:
 
What are you talking about? This is exactly what the focus has been for the past 50 years
Click to expand...

Not anymore(expect maybe for weight reduction). The whole idea of a controllable full auto rifle is dead in the western world. This is due to the perpetual advancement of optics which aid target acquisition.

Because of this change, in which the soldiers ability to acquire and engage a target is increased, the natural trend is to utilize more potent rounds which not only have more energy, but have very flat trajectory for minimizing aiming errors even at considerable distances. I assume this is especially important for a DMR and LMG. This is exactly what is hoped to be achieved through the LSAT program. If the caseless technology is accepted and adopted, the final product would be a caseless round that fires a round more potent than the current 5.56mm and with excellent external ballistics.

but the main goal of this thread is to see if a brass cased round exists that meets my requirement of no more than a 2 foot drop at 500m.
 
With a sight in range of 25yds, even the .204 Ruger has a drop of 39 inches at 500 yards and it is a smoking fast round...

There is no cartridge in existance, at least that I know of, that can deliver lethal performance and drop less than 24 inches at 500 yards with a 25 yard zero...
 
There may be such a round already, only it isn't one that any army is using, that I know of. How does the .300 magnum compare? But I'm glad someone recognizes the increased hit probability with the greater use of optical sights. I'm not so sure there has been so much advancement in optics as there has been merely a greater use of them. No doubt they met with resistance, too.

I don't agree with the assessment of the German Army in WWII and earlier, however. German propaganda did its best to convince the world how great they were and how they just rolled over the Poles and the French, while the truth was something else. They did employ what was called blitzkrieg to be sure, but that was a matter of bypassing strongpoints by the fast moving armored units and leaving them to be dealt with by regular infantry units that followed, mostly on foot and horse-drawn. There were really few enemy strategic moves anyway during that first year of the war. That came later. The Poles fought very well, though they had only a hope of holding out until their allies came to help (which they didn't) and it was hopeless after the Soviets attacked from the other side. The French, who had been waging sitzkrieg on the other side, were defeated at the highest levels, not at the soldier's and citizen's level and certainly not in the Maginot Line. It just took the Germans six weeks to get them to realize it.

But to return to the initial question, how many soldiers do you suppose could make hits at 500 yards anyway?
 
How does the .300 magnum compare?
Click to expand...

I was thinking about a round equal to the 308 or less.

But to return to the initial question, how many soldiers do you suppose could make hits at 500 yards anyway?
Click to expand...

It's not about the rifleman, it's about having a universal flat shooting round for all immediate infantry weapons (gpmg/lmg, rifle/dmr). The rifleman, if he has the skills, given a rifle that can shoot accuratly at 500m is just a bonus.

Back when the salvo doctrine was the trend, it was difficult to have a universal infantry cartridge because in order to create a controllable assault rifle cartridge for burst fire, the round would be incompatible for gpmg/lmg and dmr use. Hence, the need for two infantry cartridges would remain.

Since the ever increasing advancement of optical sights, the need for a controllable burst fire rifle is practically gone. This opens the door for a wider range of one-for-all cartridge solutions. Especially one with a very flat trajectory.
 
The 6.8 SPC round has gained a lot of praise in the Army. I've seen some prototypes being tested and the results seem pretty good. With a 6.8x43 SPC 110gr V-MAX round out of a 16'' barrell the round has a drop of ~32'' @ 400m which is pretty close to the 7.62 NATO with less recoil and similar terminal ballistics (in terms of energy).

That said, as someone who sees the Army working from the inside, my guess is that they are looking hard at this round because it's relatively easy to convert our standard M4/M16's to accept this cartridge.

I don't think there will ever be a "universal infantry round" though. As the battlefield changes, the round needed to kill the enemy changes. I Iraq, most engagements were at under 200m and the 556 was "acceptable." In the Stan, where the enemy frequently engages us with RPK fire from 500m+, most units have adopted 7.62 rifles and the "squad designated marksmen" concept.
 
Last edited:
Many armies have been using two infantry weapon cartridges (not including pistol rounds) for ages. The US and now most armies not using Soviet/Russian weapons use both 5.56 and 7.62, while everyone else uses 7.62x54r and 7.62x39 (if not 5.45x39) weapons, so the disadvantage may not be all that it seems. During WWII, pistol caliber weapons were more widely used than they are now, so it was pretty much the same thing.

I'm not saying the idea has no merit, only that it won't be that earthshaking if it were so.
 
Apparently not a lot of emphasis was placed on the individual rifleman, although they did attempt to produce a semi-automatic rifle and eventually did come up with an innovative rifle, the MP-44. It was so different they renamed it, assault rifle, or more literally translated, storm rifle.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that the designation MP-44 was more a side-stepping around Hitler's opinion that if the Kar-98 was good enough for the WW1, it was good enough for WW2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top