Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: New Army Rifle caliber...  (Read 2881 times)

GaBoy45

  • WTA LEO
  • Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 1320

  • Offline
New Army Rifle caliber...
« on: May 16, 2017, 05:17:36 PM »
https://www.armytimes.com/articles/new-rifle-bigger-bullets-inside-the-armys-plan-to-ditch-the-m4-and-556

I know this has been said since Vietnam and picked up a little speed as a result of feedback from the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts. But it's interesting to note that calibers such as the .260 Remington are being tested. I'm not really holding my breath that this will come to fruition anytime soon but I'll be interested in seeing what, if anything, will be adopted both round and firearms.

But since it'll be fun to what if...

I think it'll be something in the 6mm-7mm range that will work in a standard AR-15 lower. Knowing how much the military bean counters like being able to save money, it'd make the most sense to adopt a round that will fit in the standard lowers allowing only new uppers, and possibly magazines, needing to be purchased. That and not needing any new training in the operation of the firearm.

What say y'all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed at all. Or if they could I never heard of it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    ksuguy

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 4692

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #1 on: May 16, 2017, 06:51:02 PM »
    Nothing will happen.  This comes up every couple of years, they waste a few million dollars on a study and then make no changes. 
    Kansas

    Penguin

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1651

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #2 on: May 16, 2017, 09:04:50 PM »
    I doubt anything comes of it. This talk has come and gone for years. Raise you hand if you remember the 6.8spc.
    Doobie Doobie Doo...

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5323
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Online
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #3 on: May 16, 2017, 09:42:07 PM »
    I doubt anything comes of it. This talk has come and gone for years. Raise you hand if you remember the 6.8spc.

    *Raises hand*

    Let's make the new army cartridge the current darling calibre. I vote 6.5 Grendel. If we're making rash decisions, why not?  :shrug
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7123
    • eccentric orbit

    • Online
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #4 on: May 17, 2017, 02:24:41 AM »
    A lot of folks who actually use those weapons in combat seem to think a caliber with more downrange lethality is a good idea.  I think anything that enhances that quality while maintaining the current platform is a plus.  The 6.8 SPC was probably the first serious attempt to get the military to change over to something more effective but it ran afoul of logistics problems and compatability issues with current weapons platforms. 

    Seems to me the simplest change would be to adopt the 6 x 45 cartridge.  ( Current 5.56 NATO round necked up to accept a 6mm bullet )

    The only change necessary to run the round in current equipment is a new barrel as it runs through current magazines and operates in the same pressure range ( slightly lower actually ) as the current service round.  70 grain bullets in the 3000 + fps range would turn the current service rifle into a slightly downloaded version of the venerable .243 Winchester.   

    Logistics problems will again be the main hang up with any changeover but if you truly care about the troops on the ground being able to engage and neutralize targets at 500 + yards it makes sense to do it.   :hmm
    Arizona"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness.  Bad manners.  Lack of consideration for others in minor matters.  A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot."
                          Robert A. Heinlein ,   Friday

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #5 on: May 17, 2017, 10:09:12 AM »
    Silly question for anyone with a more engineering oriented firearms bent...

    With the advances in materials sciences over the last 50 some odd years why not explore new chemical propellants that would produce much higher chamber pressures and use newer alloys and materials to make chambers to handle those pressures, thus increasing range and velocity of the rounds fired from casings with equivalent volumes to many of todays common cartridges? 
    I get that there would be a huge risk of blowing up someones 5.56 chambered firearm if you simply cranked up the pressure to double the current SAMI spec in identically sized brass intended for firing in a new weapon (similar to the issue 45-70 Trapdoor shooters have with modern ammo, yes?), but changing the geometry of the brass a bit so that it would only fit the new chamber should solve that issue. 

    Or is it that we just don't have materials that can hold higher pressures safely without increasing the weight of the firearms a ridiculous amount?

    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2023

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #6 on: May 17, 2017, 02:40:57 PM »
    Silly question for anyone with a more engineering oriented firearms bent...

    With the advances in materials sciences over the last 50 some odd years why not explore new chemical propellants that would produce much higher chamber pressures and use newer alloys and materials to make chambers to handle those pressures, thus increasing range and velocity of the rounds fired from casings with equivalent volumes to many of todays common cartridges? 
    I get that there would be a huge risk of blowing up someones 5.56 chambered firearm if you simply cranked up the pressure to double the current SAMI spec in identically sized brass intended for firing in a new weapon (similar to the issue 45-70 Trapdoor shooters have with modern ammo, yes?), but changing the geometry of the brass a bit so that it would only fit the new chamber should solve that issue. 

    Or is it that we just don't have materials that can hold higher pressures safely without increasing the weight of the firearms a ridiculous amount?

    I know from talking to machinist friends. That pressure and bullet velocity are not proportional. So doubling the pressure does not equal double the velocity and is only like 30% more. I know you also run into material issues related to barrel wear, bolt locking mechanics, bullet integrity, case integrity etc etc.

    I also assume finding propellant with higher power density AND a good pressure curve is problematic.

    I do know modern tank cannons shoot sub-caliber projectiles significantly faster than modern rifles(5500 fps or so for the dart rounds). They use the larger bore to reach those higher velocities at still acceptable pressures.

    You also get no free lunch with traditional cartridges. If the round travels faster OR has more mass. You will get more recoil. You also get increased recoil from the propellant charge weight as well. There will be other considerations as well in relation to muzzle flash, concussive shock etc etc.

    All that I have researched on the topic sorta indicates we are near the top of the curve in modern ammunition. There will be small percentage improvements, but nothing absolutely large until we get to electric projectile propulsion etc.   
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #7 on: May 17, 2017, 03:00:33 PM »
    I know from talking to machinist friends. That pressure and bullet velocity are not proportional. So doubling the pressure does not equal double the velocity and is only like 30% more. I know you also run into material issues related to barrel wear, bolt locking mechanics, bullet integrity, case integrity etc etc.

    I also assume finding propellant with higher power density AND a good pressure curve is problematic.

    I do know modern tank cannons shoot sub-caliber projectiles significantly faster than modern rifles(5500 fps or so for the dart rounds). They use the larger bore to reach those higher velocities at still acceptable pressures.

    You also get no free lunch with traditional cartridges. If the round travels faster OR has more mass. You will get more recoil. You also get increased recoil from the propellant charge weight as well. There will be other considerations as well in relation to muzzle flash, concussive shock etc etc.

    All that I have researched on the topic sorta indicates we are near the top of the curve in modern ammunition. There will be small percentage improvements, but nothing absolutely large until we get to electric projectile propulsion etc.   
    Fair enough, but how about with the end of reducing the size of the case in order to reduce the overall weight of the cartridge?
    Or improved performance of current rounds that sacrifice internal volume to the projectile that would otherwise be used for propellant yet are still within what is considered "reasonable" recoil?

    I'm not saying any of this would be orders of magnitude better, but a .308 analog with brass that was 1/4th the length might provide for a bit of advantage.



    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2023

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #8 on: May 17, 2017, 03:16:12 PM »
    Fair enough, but how about with the end of reducing the size of the case in order to reduce the overall weight of the cartridge?
    Or improved performance of current rounds that sacrifice internal volume to the projectile that would otherwise be used for propellant yet are still within what is considered "reasonable" recoil?

    I'm not saying any of this would be orders of magnitude better, but a .308 analog with brass that was 1/4th the length might provide for a bit of advantage.

    Lots of research going on in everything you stated.

    'telescoped ammo' -  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23094/this-experimental-army-rifle-uses-telescoped-ammunition/

    Composite cases - See above it is a combo

    Caseless ammo - Tons of various research since pre WW2 I believe.

    They all have various issues so far. Which is why we have stayed pretty similar for such a long time. Telescoping rounds tend to have some issues with accuracy since it is hard to maintain bore to projectile alignment without that stiff brass case and rifle chamber.

    I am not trying to dismiss your ideas, but if it some way to kill each other more effectively. Then humans tend to have thought it out pretty well.  ;)
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5761
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #9 on: May 17, 2017, 03:39:41 PM »
    Yeah, we've only been doing it for a few hundred thousand years...

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5323
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Online
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #10 on: May 17, 2017, 04:05:58 PM »
    I was going to make a joke by posting George's video about 45-70 and indians, vs Taliban and 5.556, but I couldn't find it.

     :banghead
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #11 on: May 17, 2017, 09:09:28 PM »
    Yeah, we've only been doing it for a few hundred thousand years...
    Wow!  You mean we've had cased smokeless powder ammunition for a few hundred thousand years?
     :neener

    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5761
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #12 on: May 17, 2017, 09:33:30 PM »
    Wow!  You mean we've had cased smokeless powder ammunition for a few hundred thousand years?
     :neener

    Thank you for demonstrating the original weapon...   :neener

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #13 on: May 17, 2017, 09:45:50 PM »
    Lots of research going on in everything you stated.

    'telescoped ammo' -  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23094/this-experimental-army-rifle-uses-telescoped-ammunition/

    Composite cases - See above it is a combo

    Caseless ammo - Tons of various research since pre WW2 I believe.

    They all have various issues so far. Which is why we have stayed pretty similar for such a long time. Telescoping rounds tend to have some issues with accuracy since it is hard to maintain bore to projectile alignment without that stiff brass case and rifle chamber.

    I am not trying to dismiss your ideas, but if it some way to kill each other more effectively. Then humans tend to have thought it out pretty well.  ;)

    You haven't.  None of those three things were what I was asking about. They are other ways of trying to achieve improvements to reduce the size or weight of ammunition, but not the method I was inquiring about. :coffee   

     :neener
    I was just wondering if anyone had looked at propellants that are more efficient than smokeless powder but had been rejected for small arms use in the past because the chambers couldn't handle the pressure or the pressure curve.  Even adding a pound to the weight of a rifle would be acceptable if it reduced the weight of a soldiers standard load out of nearly 6 pounds of ammunition by a few pounds.

    Think of a brass .308 casing, but instead of the body being just a smidge over 2 inches it is only 1 inch, or perhaps half an inch.   The projectile is still seated to the same depth as it is in current ammunition. Same primers.  Just reduced case capacity.
    That's what I was thinking might work if a more energy dense propellant could be worked up, again maybe something that had been previously discarded because of issues with chamber pressures that more recent developments in metallurgy could easily cope with.

    Just because Uncle Sugar is working on the LSAT program doesn't mean anyone has actually looked into this.   
    Back when NASA was spending bucket-loads of money trying to figure out how to make an ink pen that would write reliably in zero gee without leaking all over the place the Soviets solved the problem by giving their cosmonauts standard graphite pencils to write with.   Sometimes mixing old technology with a modern update can get you results that you can't quite manage yet with all new tech.   


    Anyway...off to work. No sleep so today is going to be even more coffee filled than normal.  :facepalm

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #14 on: May 17, 2017, 09:47:03 PM »
    Thank you for demonstrating the original weapon...   :neener
    Mark I sarcasm. 
    Lethal to tender egos with an effective range of hearing.
     :thumbup1


    booksmart

    • Token Left Leaning Idealist Libertarian
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5761
    • E. Pluribus Unum.

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #15 on: May 17, 2017, 10:05:42 PM »
    *doppler*  And he misses...

    Lowkey, you're forgetting basic physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Anything that makes the bullet go thataway-> faster, it'seems going to kick thisaway  <-  harder.  So, unless we're going to get into man-portable recoilless rifles...

    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2023

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #16 on: May 17, 2017, 11:13:30 PM »
    You haven't.  None of those three things were what I was asking about. They are other ways of trying to achieve improvements to reduce the size or weight of ammunition, but not the method I was inquiring about. :coffee   

     :neener
    I was just wondering if anyone had looked at propellants that are more efficient than smokeless powder but had been rejected for small arms use in the past because the chambers couldn't handle the pressure or the pressure curve.  Even adding a pound to the weight of a rifle would be acceptable if it reduced the weight of a soldiers standard load out of nearly 6 pounds of ammunition by a few pounds.

    Think of a brass .308 casing, but instead of the body being just a smidge over 2 inches it is only 1 inch, or perhaps half an inch.   The projectile is still seated to the same depth as it is in current ammunition. Same primers.  Just reduced case capacity.
    That's what I was thinking might work if a more energy dense propellant could be worked up, again maybe something that had been previously discarded because of issues with chamber pressures that more recent developments in metallurgy could easily cope with.

    Just because Uncle Sugar is working on the LSAT program doesn't mean anyone has actually looked into this.   
    Back when NASA was spending bucket-loads of money trying to figure out how to make an ink pen that would write reliably in zero gee without leaking all over the place the Soviets solved the problem by giving their cosmonauts standard graphite pencils to write with.   Sometimes mixing old technology with a modern update can get you results that you can't quite manage yet with all new tech.   


    Anyway...off to work. No sleep so today is going to be even more coffee filled than normal.  :facepalm

    Like I stated before, finding a higher power density propellant has been extremely problematic. The pressure curves are just no good for firearm use. The pressure curves are typically far to steep. So they put out a ton more pressure, but actually accelerate the projectile to a slower speed. Since speed is a function of time AND force. 

    There is constant study into energy dense propellants for rocket use. The modern metal fuel used in some boosters is much more energy dense(4 times or more IIRC) than smokeless powder. It just has crappy qualities for gunpowder. There are also many explosives that have higher energy density. They just tend to spike pressure very quickly. So great for blowing stuff apart, not so much good for shooting bullets.

    Modern gunpowder is highly refined for its intended use. It has great pressure curves, excellent ignition in varied temps, cheap to produce, doesn't ignite in unwanted situations. It is really tough to find something significantly better.

    P.S. You also might wanna drop that bit about spending millions on pen research by NASA. Since it did not happen as the first NASA astronauts used mechanical pencils. The space pen used later was developed all on the dime of the pen company. Pencils are also horrible to use in space as the graphite goes everywhere in low gravity environments and is somewhat electrically conductive.

    I know you were using it as an example, but using false examples just makes you look rather dumb.   
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    MTK20

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 5323
    • Mind of a philosopher, mouth of a sailor.

    • Online
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #17 on: May 17, 2017, 11:15:13 PM »
    Ok, so I actually read the article and it was as bad as expected. They have had previous solutions and possibilities to use with current platforms and yet they still choose to spend heaps of money on new cartridges and firearms. Stupid  :banghead.

    If keeping things NATO and using something that is more effective at greater distance is such a concern, why don't we just use .308? Everyone who is NATO has it and we have firearms in it already. Troops used .308 as a main service cartridge in the past and were still able to win wars, why not now?

    Lastly, the article said that the Taliban are using cartridges with greater distance than our troops use? What round is that? Don't they mainly use 7.62x39 with the occasional 7.62x54R thrown in? AK's in 7.62x39 wouldn't out shoot an M4 and I don't believe X54R is used all that often.
    Texas
    Do we forget that cops were primarily still using 6 Shot Revolvers well through the mid 80's? It wasn't until after 1986 that most departments then relented and went to autos.
    Capacity wasn't really an issue then... and honestly really it's not even an issue now.
    Ray Chapman, used to say that the 125-grain Magnum load’s almost magical stopping power was the only reason to load .357 instead of .38 Special +P ammunition into a fighting revolver chambered for the Magnum round. I agree. - Massad Ayoob

    Paradoxically it is those who strive for self-reliance, who remain vigilant and ready to help others.

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #18 on: May 18, 2017, 03:21:25 AM »
    *doppler*  And he misses...

    Lowkey, you're forgetting basic physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Anything that makes the bullet go thataway-> faster, it'seems going to kick thisaway  <-  harder.  So, unless we're going to get into man-portable recoilless rifles...
    I didn't miss the physics. You missed what I said.
    Smaller volume and weight of propellant in a smaller casing to send the same size/weight projectile at the same speed.   Reducing the size and weight of a cartridge by developing a better propellant.

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #19 on: May 18, 2017, 04:30:59 AM »


    P.S. You also might wanna drop that bit about spending millions on pen research by NASA. Since it did not happen as the first NASA astronauts used mechanical pencils. The space pen used later was developed all on the dime of the pen company. Pencils are also horrible to use in space as the graphite goes everywhere in low gravity environments and is somewhat electrically conductive.

    I know you were using it as an example, but using false examples just makes you look rather dumb.   

    Huh, interesting.
    Looks like I along with a fairly large number of people thought that urban legend which has been around since the 60's was true.  Not having had reason to investigate the tale previously it sounded plausible enough.  Not the first and surely not the last time someone will try to illustrate a concept or idea with an apocryphal tale.   

    LowKey

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 122

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #20 on: May 18, 2017, 04:48:47 AM »
    Like I stated before, finding a higher power density propellant has been extremely problematic. The pressure curves are just no good for firearm use. The pressure curves are typically far to steep. So they put out a ton more pressure, but actually accelerate the projectile to a slower speed. Since speed is a function of time AND force. 

    There is constant study into energy dense propellants for rocket use. The modern metal fuel used in some boosters is much more energy dense(4 times or more IIRC) than smokeless powder. It just has crappy qualities for gunpowder. There are also many explosives that have higher energy density. They just tend to spike pressure very quickly. So great for blowing stuff apart, not so much good for shooting bullets.

    Modern gunpowder is highly refined for its intended use. It has great pressure curves, excellent ignition in varied temps, cheap to produce, doesn't ignite in unwanted situations. It is really tough to find something significantly better.

    Does the main issue with the pressure curve being "too steep" mean that it blows the chamber up rather than propelling the projectile down the barrel?   
    If I'm missing something fair enough, but as far as I know the expanding gases from any propellant only have two ways to exit the chamber. 
    First by expanding into the barrel thereby propelling the projectile down the barrel. 
    Second by blowing up the chamber (or variation on this theme by finding ways out through the action).   
    If the chamber holds up to the pressure curve then how would the acceleration of the projectile be slower, or did you mean that the expanding gases would have less time to impart velocity to the projectile due to the shorter dwell time in the barrel?



    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2023

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #21 on: May 18, 2017, 04:55:48 PM »
    Does the main issue with the pressure curve being "too steep" mean that it blows the chamber up rather than propelling the projectile down the barrel?   
    If I'm missing something fair enough, but as far as I know the expanding gases from any propellant only have two ways to exit the chamber. 
    First by expanding into the barrel thereby propelling the projectile down the barrel. 
    Second by blowing up the chamber (or variation on this theme by finding ways out through the action).   
    If the chamber holds up to the pressure curve then how would the acceleration of the projectile be slower, or did you mean that the expanding gases would have less time to impart velocity to the projectile due to the shorter dwell time in the barrel?

    I only know from what little I read that the pressure spike ruptured chambers OR fractured the projectile and gassed out that way. Some was caused by simple over pressure of the materials and others failures were caused by exceeding the speed of sound in some material causing critical failures.

    You cannot push a projectile down a bore faster than the speed of sound in the gas in the bore. This is one of the reasons light gas guns are used in scientific tests. They use a different gas with a higher speed of sound to achieve higher velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun     

    I also know that the pressure spikes were not predictable. A slight increase in temp or charge might make the runaway pressure spike. As pressure goes up so does heat. So you have a double hit on the materials of needing to be taking more pressure AT higher temperatures. I know the high temperatures of the metal type propellants cause insane levels of wear on the bore. Some erosion being so great as to make it no longer functional after one shot.   

    I am by no means an expert on any of this stuff. I just know what I have read from pure curiosity. 
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    Plebian

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 2023

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #22 on: May 18, 2017, 05:01:01 PM »
    Huh, interesting.
    Looks like I along with a fairly large number of people thought that urban legend which has been around since the 60's was true.  Not having had reason to investigate the tale previously it sounded plausible enough.  Not the first and surely not the last time someone will try to illustrate a concept or idea with an apocryphal tale.

    Sorry. I work in a scientific environment. So researching your information, even when used for illustration, is required.
    Oklahoma"If all our problems are solved, we'll find new ones to replace them. If we can't find new ones, we'll make new ones."

    coelacanth

    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 7123
    • eccentric orbit

    • Online
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #23 on: May 19, 2017, 12:03:51 AM »
    I only know from what little I read that the pressure spike ruptured chambers OR fractured the projectile and gassed out that way. Some was caused by simple over pressure of the materials and others failures were caused by exceeding the speed of sound in some material causing critical failures.

    You cannot push a projectile down a bore faster than the speed of sound in the gas in the bore. This is one of the reasons light gas guns are used in scientific tests. They use a different gas with a higher speed of sound to achieve higher velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun     

    I also know that the pressure spikes were not predictable. A slight increase in temp or charge might make the runaway pressure spike. As pressure goes up so does heat. So you have a double hit on the materials of needing to be taking more pressure AT higher temperatures. I know the high temperatures of the metal type propellants cause insane levels of wear on the bore. Some erosion being so great as to make it no longer functional after one shot.   

    I am by no means an expert on any of this stuff. I just know what I have read from pure curiosity. 
    This ^ .   To give you another example, the difference between your Honda Civic sedan and a top fuel dragster is sort of like the difference being described between the two propellants in question.  A Honda civic sedan can easily make it through a quarter mile top speed run and then do it again - and again - and again.  Not so with the top fuel dragster.  Yes, it goes much faster because it develops insane amounts of horsepower and torque.  At the cost of ruinous amounts of parts failure - sometimes after only a single run - or even a partial run.  If top speed is the only consideration you build a top fuel dragster but if effective transportation and reliability are the goal you build something like the Honda Civic.  The military needs the equivalent of the top fuel dragster in only a tiny percentage of possible mission applications but it needs a Honda Civic all day long, every day when it comes to fielding a battle rifle. 
    Arizona"A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness.  Bad manners.  Lack of consideration for others in minor matters.  A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot."
                          Robert A. Heinlein ,   Friday

    RetroGrouch

    • Senior Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 840

    • Offline
    Re: New Army Rifle caliber...
    « Reply #24 on: May 19, 2017, 02:26:07 AM »
    I seriously doubt the Army will replace the M16 series or the 5.56 round. There is just too much inertia in the military, manufacturing and political arenas to do so, short of a major event or threat that cannot be handled by the current combination of guns and caliber.  They go through this song and dance every few years, waste time and money, and decide to do nothing.


    Having said that I personally think we've gone too far with the worshipping at the altar of "firepower wins wars".  Eventually you have to hit someone with all those projectiles and kill them.  Once a 5.56 goes subsonic, it's like being shot by a subsonic 22lr that doesn't deform.  Not exactly what I would pick to hunt anything larger than a rabbit, let alone an armed man.


    Therein lies the next problem, you have to train soldiers to shoot well enough to hit those targets at the distances involved.


    Sure you can use artillery and air strikes, but only if the artillery is in range or the aircraft available, and both require someone to call in the co-ordinates accurately.  Eventually we will be fighting somewhere the weather greatly hinders our air power, or possibly we won't have control of the skies.


    Personally I'd favor something in the 6.5 mm caliber, with a more ergonomic, ambidextrous design from the ground up.


    Arizona

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.