universal infantry cartridge possibilities/chatter/etc.......
- Thread starter Evil Monkey
- Start date
I really don't get the question. With a combat zero of 300 meters (as is usual), almost every round, including the 7.62x51mm, the 300 win mag and 338 lapua mag will drop more then 2 feet. The 220 Swift comes close, but isn't practical for military rifles.
Why botter looking for a super cartridge when you can easily make AK-style sights that allow for range adjustment in a matter of seconds?
Why botter looking for a super cartridge when you can easily make AK-style sights that allow for range adjustment in a matter of seconds?
It would have happened if it existed.
The ballistics of a single soldier operated weapon means being dependent on the user's eyesight and skill in acquiring targets. We've added red dots and low powered scopes to that recently as the tech gained durability. Nonetheless, it's still a 500m max range for the average soldier. That hasn't changed in 100 years.
An MG or other weapon is crew served. It breaks down into sub assemblies, offers a lot more sustained fire, is now commonly vehicle mounted, and still depends on that soldier to sight it in. The purpose is more area coverage, not single point. Heavier bullets to impact tougher targets, such as cover, vehicles, and armor are the norm. Not necessarily even trying to be downward compatible. That would be akin to mounting twin 5.56 MG's in the nose of an attack helicopter. It would limit the application, not maximize it.
The fallacy of the argument is trying to force the use of a universal cartridge when the exact opposite has been proven much more successfully in the last century of warfare. Each specific type of weapon is designed around distinctly different ammo used with different affects at different ranges. Forcing them to fit a cookie cutter approach only creates gaps in range coverage the enemy could then exploit.
The roots of the concept really go to those with just enough military knowledge to be dangerous. In reality, the practice and record of history show that MORE diversification is necessary, not less. We can't just eliminate a particular size of round completely, because the variances of war will come back around and we'll find we needed it again on a specific battlefield. Case in point: the .308 self loading sniper and Afghanistan. We've addressed it now, and the war has changed again, leaving the rebuilt M14's in the racks almost before they got fielded. The short term exploitation of a lack of range has also been addressed with snipers, aviation assets, artillery, and the war moving into the villages as the Taliban attempt to conceal themselves within the population, use IED's, etc.
No, regardless of the actual size of the round, you can't have a universal cartridge. Reality has proven it a pipe dream.
The ballistics of a single soldier operated weapon means being dependent on the user's eyesight and skill in acquiring targets. We've added red dots and low powered scopes to that recently as the tech gained durability. Nonetheless, it's still a 500m max range for the average soldier. That hasn't changed in 100 years.
An MG or other weapon is crew served. It breaks down into sub assemblies, offers a lot more sustained fire, is now commonly vehicle mounted, and still depends on that soldier to sight it in. The purpose is more area coverage, not single point. Heavier bullets to impact tougher targets, such as cover, vehicles, and armor are the norm. Not necessarily even trying to be downward compatible. That would be akin to mounting twin 5.56 MG's in the nose of an attack helicopter. It would limit the application, not maximize it.
The fallacy of the argument is trying to force the use of a universal cartridge when the exact opposite has been proven much more successfully in the last century of warfare. Each specific type of weapon is designed around distinctly different ammo used with different affects at different ranges. Forcing them to fit a cookie cutter approach only creates gaps in range coverage the enemy could then exploit.
The roots of the concept really go to those with just enough military knowledge to be dangerous. In reality, the practice and record of history show that MORE diversification is necessary, not less. We can't just eliminate a particular size of round completely, because the variances of war will come back around and we'll find we needed it again on a specific battlefield. Case in point: the .308 self loading sniper and Afghanistan. We've addressed it now, and the war has changed again, leaving the rebuilt M14's in the racks almost before they got fielded. The short term exploitation of a lack of range has also been addressed with snipers, aviation assets, artillery, and the war moving into the villages as the Taliban attempt to conceal themselves within the population, use IED's, etc.
No, regardless of the actual size of the round, you can't have a universal cartridge. Reality has proven it a pipe dream.
Mrgunsngear
New member
^
+1 to what TIROD said.
+1 to what TIROD said.
Evil Monkey
New member
Yes you can have a universal cartridge. And it HAS been proven, but numerous bureaucratic blunders in history have put an end to it.
When caseless or telescopic cased ammo becomes viable, there will be a universal round for both a true GPMG and rifle/DMR (sniper rifles need not apply). Hell, we can achieve it now in metal cased format but would be a waste of money. We could have done it many years ago too.
Remember 6mm SAW? Knocked out due to having three cartridges in service. Could have replaced both the 5.56mm and the 7.62mm for gpmg and rifle/dmr.
Now I don't know if there can be a round right now that will drop no more than 2 feet at 500m, but I do know 100% that there can be a universal cartridge.
I think there are two factors, somewhat contradictory, that need to be mentioned here. One is that armies have gained vast experiences over the years, much more so than individuals, who have only their own viewpoints and experiences to draw upon. Moreover, an army has problems of their own that are generally invisible to the man on the ground but which nevertheless are part of the equation. When actual operations are underway, these problems are multiplied. And the bigger the operations, the bigger the problems.
At the same time, because armies are not constantly involved in wars and conflicts (recent history is apparently an exception to that statement), they sometimes forget things. When the shooting starts, it almost seems like they have to learn things all over again, or at least update them just a little. That's the old "prepared for the last war" thing. Many things seemed to require an actual frontline need for something before it comes out of storage. Sniping seems to be a good example of that.
Generally speaking, however, much depends on the leadership at battlefield level, speaking here of brigade and lower units. That's where the fighting happens. The unit commander must have an appreciation of the resources available in the unit, meaning he must be willing to actually make use of them, or they'll be wasted, either being misused or not used at all. Likewise, the soldiers themselves must believe in or have confidence in their weapons, too, and that can be a hard thing to judge from outside (or on high).
At the same time, because armies are not constantly involved in wars and conflicts (recent history is apparently an exception to that statement), they sometimes forget things. When the shooting starts, it almost seems like they have to learn things all over again, or at least update them just a little. That's the old "prepared for the last war" thing. Many things seemed to require an actual frontline need for something before it comes out of storage. Sniping seems to be a good example of that.
Generally speaking, however, much depends on the leadership at battlefield level, speaking here of brigade and lower units. That's where the fighting happens. The unit commander must have an appreciation of the resources available in the unit, meaning he must be willing to actually make use of them, or they'll be wasted, either being misused or not used at all. Likewise, the soldiers themselves must believe in or have confidence in their weapons, too, and that can be a hard thing to judge from outside (or on high).
Caseless ammo development has been going on for 75 years, and we are no closer to having caseless ammo than we were then. So when we have caseless ammo, let's talk about it then. As of now, it's a non-starter.
Sure. (yawn)
Lackluster then, who cares anymore? 100 gr at 2,500 fps. Woo hoo! I have a 30-30 that can outdo that.
This is in response to the post just before my previous one.
I'm not so sure that a universal cartridge (one cartridge for rifle and GPMG), whether or not it meets the need at 500 meters, is necessarily a useful concept. If it is, we've been there before and more than once. After all, that was the whole idea behind the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is close to being universal. There are only a handful of different cartridges in wide use anyway.
When the .30-06, 7.62x54r, the .303 and the 8mm Mauser were the standard cartridges for the armies that used them, they all adopted submachine guns once they realized that it was a nice thing to have around. Once the intermediate cartridge was introduced, submachine guns essentially became obsolete for most infantry purposes. Apparently the M1 rifle, though a self-loader, not to mention all the later semi-automatic rifles, wasn't enough all the time. As long as the rifle fired a "rifle caliber" cartridge, submachine guns continued to be used.
Enter the new generation of intermediate cartridges.
Well, in a way, we've been there before. Numerous cartridges were in use from 6mm to 6.5mm while other people were using cartridges in the .30 to .32 caliber range. Those with lots of experience using them in actual warfare went to larger calibers or tried to. Some countries that used such smaller bore cartridges still used a larger bore cartridge for their heavy machine guns (now referred to as medium machine guns). I guess they were trying to cover all the bases.
Are all of these newer cartridges going to fare any better if there is an attempt to use them for everything?
I'm not so sure that a universal cartridge (one cartridge for rifle and GPMG), whether or not it meets the need at 500 meters, is necessarily a useful concept. If it is, we've been there before and more than once. After all, that was the whole idea behind the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is close to being universal. There are only a handful of different cartridges in wide use anyway.
When the .30-06, 7.62x54r, the .303 and the 8mm Mauser were the standard cartridges for the armies that used them, they all adopted submachine guns once they realized that it was a nice thing to have around. Once the intermediate cartridge was introduced, submachine guns essentially became obsolete for most infantry purposes. Apparently the M1 rifle, though a self-loader, not to mention all the later semi-automatic rifles, wasn't enough all the time. As long as the rifle fired a "rifle caliber" cartridge, submachine guns continued to be used.
Enter the new generation of intermediate cartridges.
Well, in a way, we've been there before. Numerous cartridges were in use from 6mm to 6.5mm while other people were using cartridges in the .30 to .32 caliber range. Those with lots of experience using them in actual warfare went to larger calibers or tried to. Some countries that used such smaller bore cartridges still used a larger bore cartridge for their heavy machine guns (now referred to as medium machine guns). I guess they were trying to cover all the bases.
Are all of these newer cartridges going to fare any better if there is an attempt to use them for everything?
Evil Monkey
New member
The 6mm, and many others like the 280 british had excellent external ballistics which provided great energy retention at long ranges for gpmg/dmr use. They also had great sectional density for barrier penetration.
I think caseless ammo is not the way forward. The problems seem to be ammo shelf life in harsh conditions, and heat build up in the chamber.
However, telescopic cased ammo is another story. Observe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHkW-RKBXK4
Most likely because the small rounds like 5.56mm and 5.45mm are not good enough to take take over some mounted or crew served MG roles, and in some cases, DMR roles. But there are MANY rounds in between 5.56/5.45mm and 7.62nato/7.62x54r that can take over both rounds and their jobs.
The problem is initial mistakes in procurement and now it is money.
Why not? It has already been proven through out history. There just isn't a push until the next big thing, like telescopic ammo and weapons systems.
Tell me, if telescopic ammo was to be accepted, do you really think it would be in TWO calibers?
Those responsible for the procurement of telescopic cased ammo technology in the US military have already stated, the final product shall utilize a round which will accomplish both the current 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm duties. There are no exceptions.
The only individual weapon systems that may use a different munition are the long range, purpose built sniper rifles.
Universal? Please state the degree to which it will replace things.
The MTOE of an MP company includes 12 ga, 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, 40mm, and .50 BMG, depending on the mission. Pretty much the same for an Infantry company, who may also have mortars.
Universal? No, it cannot be done. Caseless? The Army announced they may have battalion sized exercises this year or next, fielding hundreds of weapons in the exercise, including magazine and belt fed weapons. No less an interested participant than SOCOM has signed on to help test. It's called the LSAT, and doubles the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. That alone can improve hit ratios up to a 100%, simply because twice as much ammo is flying downrange. Not junk science at all.
But could the LSAT replace the .50 BMG? Not hardly. Not even the .308. NO universal cartridge does that, again, it's a pipe dream that ignores the reality of military use and the battlefield. Those that propose it don't have a clue.
You can't make a round sufficient for 500m max range carried on the soldier in a maximum quantity of 300 rounds brass cased, or 600 round LSAT, suddenly start doing the job of the M2, firing at armored personnel carriers at 1,500m. Since you can't have a universal round, and the practice of war shows the exact opposite is what is needed, it's just an intellectual bong for daydreaming. Not practical at all.
The MTOE of an MP company includes 12 ga, 9mm, 5.56, 7.62, 40mm, and .50 BMG, depending on the mission. Pretty much the same for an Infantry company, who may also have mortars.
Universal? No, it cannot be done. Caseless? The Army announced they may have battalion sized exercises this year or next, fielding hundreds of weapons in the exercise, including magazine and belt fed weapons. No less an interested participant than SOCOM has signed on to help test. It's called the LSAT, and doubles the amount of ammo a soldier can carry. That alone can improve hit ratios up to a 100%, simply because twice as much ammo is flying downrange. Not junk science at all.
But could the LSAT replace the .50 BMG? Not hardly. Not even the .308. NO universal cartridge does that, again, it's a pipe dream that ignores the reality of military use and the battlefield. Those that propose it don't have a clue.
You can't make a round sufficient for 500m max range carried on the soldier in a maximum quantity of 300 rounds brass cased, or 600 round LSAT, suddenly start doing the job of the M2, firing at armored personnel carriers at 1,500m. Since you can't have a universal round, and the practice of war shows the exact opposite is what is needed, it's just an intellectual bong for daydreaming. Not practical at all.
Evil Monkey
New member
It would replace the 5.56mm and the 7.62mm NATO cartridges. Not the 50cal, 9mm ,etc. I don't know how you thought that.
You keep saying that, but it doesn't mean a thing. It's been proven that you CAN have one round that can take the roles of both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO. I don't know why you keep contesting. The information is already out there.
maybe you need a refresher. here's some good reads.....
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The Next Generation.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/future small arms.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf
Come and take it.
New member
they already have a universal cartridge in the 223. with the new m855a1 it can penetrate cinder block better than a 308 fmj. small bullets yaw quicker in muscle and organs better than big bullets, of which the average human is pretty enemic as far as big game goes.
Everything the 308 can do the 223 can do. Even as a designated marksmen rifle or a general purpose machine gun.
If you cant have a cartridge as powerful as a 30-06 or a 54r what is the use in having a full power rifle cartridge?
Everything the 308 can do the 223 can do. Even as a designated marksmen rifle or a general purpose machine gun.
If you cant have a cartridge as powerful as a 30-06 or a 54r what is the use in having a full power rifle cartridge?
trg42wraglefragle
New member
To answer the OPs original question the 243wssm has less than 2 ft drop at 500yards or meters, but I can't see that being adopted as the standard round
Come and take it.
New member
308 fmj is too much for a human. A coyote is harder to kill than a human which weighs at the least 2-3 times more. Its not that the extra power isnt beneficial but the power is completely worthless if it doesnt yaw and fragment at least a small amount. By the time the 30 caliber leaves the human body it is only beginning to yaw. That it takes some penetration before it yaws would actually be good if you were hunting an elk or moose but not so good against a fragile creature like a man.
the difference in experience is more perception than actual empirecal facts. We tend to think that something bigger is deadlier than something smaller. Which if both rounds were using soft or hollow points this would definitely be the case but we are not.
Furthermore the myth of stopping power has been discussed many times and therefore is a mute issue. However if stopping power were an issue than we would come to the conclusion that more of the effect of momentum would be left in a body where the projectile left mass in the body than a projectile which passed through without leaving any mass at all nor a wake of multiple fragmentation channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
I know the source is wiki... but still...
the difference in experience is more perception than actual empirecal facts. We tend to think that something bigger is deadlier than something smaller. Which if both rounds were using soft or hollow points this would definitely be the case but we are not.
Furthermore the myth of stopping power has been discussed many times and therefore is a mute issue. However if stopping power were an issue than we would come to the conclusion that more of the effect of momentum would be left in a body where the projectile left mass in the body than a projectile which passed through without leaving any mass at all nor a wake of multiple fragmentation channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
I know the source is wiki... but still...
Well, I kind of think that bigger is better, no matter what gun you're talking about, although I have heard the claim that the 7.62 NATO is overpowered.
When I was referring to countries using a larger cartridge for their medium machine guns while they used a smaller round for their rifles, I was referring to Japan, Italy and Sweden (and others) who used. They all had cartridges that varied from 6.5x50 to 6.5x58. Bullet weights varied from about 140 grain to 160 grain. The .280 British was about the same but with a shorter case and the .276 Pedersen was pretty much the same but with a longer case. The 6mm SAW used a 105 grain bullet.
And finally, I'd like to see a humane bullet.
When I was referring to countries using a larger cartridge for their medium machine guns while they used a smaller round for their rifles, I was referring to Japan, Italy and Sweden (and others) who used. They all had cartridges that varied from 6.5x50 to 6.5x58. Bullet weights varied from about 140 grain to 160 grain. The .280 British was about the same but with a shorter case and the .276 Pedersen was pretty much the same but with a longer case. The 6mm SAW used a 105 grain bullet.
And finally, I'd like to see a humane bullet.
And finally, I'd like to see a humane bullet.
We've now gone from uninformed about the realities of combat to the completely inane.
I'm calling this out as trolling.
The purpose in combat marksmanship is to put a high energy bullet into another human being. That means the exercise of diplomacy has completely failed, and so has the effort of being humane.
Look what the Full Metal Jacket requirement has made happen - instead of dumping the bullets energy into the human structure and damaging it enough to stop further action, it passes thru - meaning they have to be shot again, and maybe another time, to get them to cease participating. That's happened time and again regardless of caliber.
Bullet construction has a lot to do with end performance, much more than the overall diameter. What I'm reading here are comments with no basis in ballistic facts or education in combat application.
One in ten had served in the Armed Forces in the civilian population of the 1960's, and now it's one in one hundred. The consensus among today's prior service military is that the average citizen has no clue about combat or the application of force.
It's a dangerous, ugly art and that's why Basic and AIT lasts 14 weeks, to knock the rough edges off amateurs and attempt to keep them alive more than 30 days in combat.
The average guy on the street would no more comment on brain surgery or building a short wave radio, but given their testosterone influenced brain connections, warfare is something they seem to know intimately as an expert before having ever raised their hand in swearing allegiance.
No, it doesn't really follow, as they discover over and over again in the first three years of their enlistment. Unfortunately, now, the internet exists, and another outlet on uninformed and basically clueless opinionating exists for those with more force of will than actual content.
The forum subtitle claims, "Take it to the limit." We're there.
We've now gone from uninformed about the realities of combat to the completely inane.
I'm calling this out as trolling.
The purpose in combat marksmanship is to put a high energy bullet into another human being. That means the exercise of diplomacy has completely failed, and so has the effort of being humane.
Look what the Full Metal Jacket requirement has made happen - instead of dumping the bullets energy into the human structure and damaging it enough to stop further action, it passes thru - meaning they have to be shot again, and maybe another time, to get them to cease participating. That's happened time and again regardless of caliber.
Bullet construction has a lot to do with end performance, much more than the overall diameter. What I'm reading here are comments with no basis in ballistic facts or education in combat application.
One in ten had served in the Armed Forces in the civilian population of the 1960's, and now it's one in one hundred. The consensus among today's prior service military is that the average citizen has no clue about combat or the application of force.
It's a dangerous, ugly art and that's why Basic and AIT lasts 14 weeks, to knock the rough edges off amateurs and attempt to keep them alive more than 30 days in combat.
The average guy on the street would no more comment on brain surgery or building a short wave radio, but given their testosterone influenced brain connections, warfare is something they seem to know intimately as an expert before having ever raised their hand in swearing allegiance.
No, it doesn't really follow, as they discover over and over again in the first three years of their enlistment. Unfortunately, now, the internet exists, and another outlet on uninformed and basically clueless opinionating exists for those with more force of will than actual content.
The forum subtitle claims, "Take it to the limit." We're there.
Evil Monkey
New member
The heck are you talking about? There's no "energy dump" and other such non sense.
Bullets must pass completely through the target to be effective.
It's what the bullet does as it passes that determines its lethality. Yawing, fragging, mushrooming, etc.
Let's not derail this thread further into "stopping power", "energy dump", and other gun magazine junk science.