That is not correct.

Next generation Grenadier. 40mm everything.

Belt fed, man portable, miniature MK19 in every infantry squad.

Cover? What cover?

Attached File

That’s going to be expensive. Will the troops be doing mag dumps at the Chinese? If that happens, will prices go up at Walmart and Costco?

I agree fully with this but you KNOW that marksmanship is always just a check in the box, even for most Inf unit. I wonder about the logistics for this M7 with it only going to 11B units that leaves the rest of the Bn with 5.56 M4s and SAWs and M240s while the 11Bs have M7 and M250s. The Distro platoons had better be on their game.
Without proper training this weapon platform is pretty useless and our weapons training in the past 20 years for most has not been the best……as it is driven by the lowest performer that still can’t figure out how to zero or how a CCO fits on the upper. All these high speed female grunts should love toting this 20lb beast and load.
I could see this M7 as a weapon selection for specific missions but damn….   My son went to Aberdeen for a Sig/DA show off on this weapon and got to shoot about 1500 rounds and loves the M250, but says the M7 is a beast that he does not want to do CQB with.  Big scrapping 11BP and his forearms were burning using this thing.
Sig could sell the Army packages of shit and Big Army would jack off thinking about it.

If you can’t make mission and your retention sucks you gotta spend the budget on something. Almost criminal but it is DOD so its not illegal.

ESAPI and Level IV are rated for multiple hits from 166gr AP @ ~2700fps impact velocity. 6.8x51 starts lighter than that, and is slowed down to that speed before 100 meters, I think. So you’re right….if this cartridge penetrates armor better than existing ammo, it will be due to projectile material and design that could have been applied to existing cartridges. I don’t see it changing the game via armor defeating capability.
SAAMI standardized at 80kpsi. In other words, any commercial load can be as hot as the military load and still comply with the standard for sporting ammunition. Probably a bad idea, though.

The Chinese have made them (in 35mm) since 2018 and has sold them to Iran.  The ones they sold to Saudi Arabia shoot US Mark 19 high pressure grenades.
They have 3, 5, and 7-round drums, shoot to 1,000 yards in the day and 800 at night through a thermal.

Only ESAPI is rated for 3 hits of M2AP with the first hit at 3K fps, and the subsequent at 2,880 fps. NIJ level IV only tests for one single hit of that at 2,880. The big difference is M2AP is a tool steel core. It's taken high end plates like XSAPI, or the Adept Colossus to stop M993 in 7.62 NATO. US Military claims M993's replacement M1158 performs better than that. The 6.8x51 tungsten variant is alleged to be as well. I guess we won't know until it's seen in the wild.

Spicy potato gun

Point being, plates are already rated for cartridges as powerful as 6.8x51 and have been for decades.

The stated goal of this new round was to be able to defeat L-IV armor at 600m.  Maybe they walked back from that, but initially that's what they wanted

At which point it’s under 2000 fps, so no way is it defeating armor rated for a heavier projectile at 3k fps.

600m is machine gun or IDF range UNLESS you have provided training to the actual shooter and even then going back to WW2 most riflemen do not engage much past 150-200m. The round sounds good for the M250MG but still seems like a overburden to the rifleman/grunt chick…

Tungsten is still quite a bit different to stop vs steel core M2AP. But you're right, if they're at a 2000 fps or under at 600M, serious doubt as to it's ability. I've tested M993 to defeat most level IV's down to 2800 fps as 13" is the shortest 308 I have. Having an exposed penetrator tip IIRC can be advantageous for ceramic destruction. I know when Karl over at Tactical Riflemen got to demo one of the NGSW, they were testing it at 400M for penetration, but he was bound by NDA not to discuss the results..

I completely agree with you, but if projectile design or material is the key to meeting NGSW goals, and does so, then that can be applied to existing cartridges, as well.

Your agrument does not make sense. If you start with a turd caliber you just get the bestest turd.

If you apply the same design effort to 6mm, 6.5mm, or 7mm bullet, it will far outperform the same technology applied to 6.8mm.

Exposed penetrators are almost always worse for armor penetration; whether steel or tungsten.  Exposed steel and tungsten carbide penetrators have been around since WW2.  After capped and balistic capped ammo was discovered, they were never seriously adopted for any role that I can think except for maybe some aircraft cannon loads.

There is a paper floating around that does radiographs of M993 penetrating ceramic plates of various thicknesses with and without jacket.  The lack of jacket degrades performance by increasing the rate of pressure build up on the penetrator.  This increases abrasion and fracturing to a very noticeable degree.  If I can find the paper, I will post a link or the DIO

I cant find the DOI but the paper is:

The Effect of Gilding Jacket Material on the Penetration Mechanics of a 7.62mm Armor Piercing Projectile
P.J. Hazell  August 20 2012

Found it. Seems I got that ass backwards. It's interesting that the EPR rounds are using exposed penetrators as well M1158.

Yes, and now I understand the confusion (including my own) that is evident in the postings here.
The 277 Fury SAAMI spec does list the pressure level for the all-brass cartridge as 80,000 psi, but has warnings about not exceeding 65,000 psi pressure levels. The formal spec is as clear as mud as to what expected pressure level should be used for this cartridge.

Need to check SIPR later

I’d swear those yellow-box warnings popped up as a revision. I wouldn’t say that they warn not to exceed 65kpsi, rather that they warn that doing so could have increased risks. I think 65kpsi max is also the warning Xcaliber barrels uses for .277 Fury. Which would make sense given the parent case, though I think you’d want to avoid treating it like a highway speed limit.

Its easy enough for a semi-custom barrel maker that knows you intend to invalidate the warranty on your rifle by rebarreling it and then shooting handloads to just put a warning on the order form. Different sort of risk for a company to produce a factory rifle chambered in such a cartridge. I think nobody wants to sell one unless it can handle a steady diet of 80kpsi because once they let it leave the factory, someone might feed it that. They wouldn’t be any more wrong to do so than the guy that puts a case of .357 magnum through a J Frame. After all, its says .277 Fury both on the barrel, and the ammunition.

The whole idea is a ridiculous waste of money, exactly what the govt. does best!  
+ how are the new WOKE female troops going to haul all that extra weight around?

Still not a lot of women in the Infantry for some reason.  M4A1 is still standard issue for for all support troops.

Ignore the idiots.

You ever notice how the people that scream the loudest about "dupe" or how easy it is to find something, never seem to find it so easy that they can find a link?

A lot of new[er] stuff got posted in here quite a few of us hadn't seen yet, no doubt. This is a pretty big deal as these things go.

I wonder what the basic ammo load out is going to be? Are we heading back to the M14 days ammo wise?

It will be like fire and maneuver with a SAW plus ammo.  The suck will be very hard.

Biggest step back in Army small arms history.

Wild that it was conceived immediately following a war in mountainous terrain, and even wilder that its cartridge (essentially its whole purpose) was seen as a solution to that mountainous terrain.

And just where would you get all that tungsten?

Annual tungsten production:

China - 63,000 MT
Vietnam - 3,500 MT
Russia - 2,000 MT
North Korea - 1,700 MT
Bolivia - 1,500 MT
Spain - 1,500 MT
Rwanda - 1,400 MT
Austria - 910 MT
Australia - 800 MT
Portugal - 500 MT

500 million rounds of M993 would consume 4,150 MT of tungsten, the total production of all friendly countries would not provide sufficient material.

LCAAP produces about 1.4 billion rounds per year,roughly 2/3 of that is 5.56mm and 7.62mm.

The British .280/30 was not what you think it was.

There were several iterations of it, so we'll go through them

The first version was a 139 grain bullet at 2,250 fps.  This is pitiful.  It is not as good as 7.62mm x 39, yeah the drag numbers for the 7mm are better that the stubby 7.62mm bullet, but it starts off so slow, its performance doesn't surpass the 7.62X 39 until after about 300 meters.  so they both start to run out of steam at the same point.

The next version was a 135 grain bullet at 2,420 fps.  That was a little better, but the velocity and energy are well below the 7.62mm NATO out to 1,000 meters, and even the M855 5.56mm keeps velocity better than this 7mm out to 600 meters.  The low muzzle velocity is the major hold up as a 300 meter zero goes over the head of a standing man at 225 meters.  This in an unacceptable trajectory.

The next version bumped the velocity up to 2,600 fps.  Now, we have a round that's trajectory is flat enough for a common zero at 300 meters, but the velocity is still below the 7.62mm NATO until 600 meters and the energy is still well below the NATO rounds until 500 meters.  Now we are at that point where you want to be, where the energy and velocity are near the 7.62mm NATO, but low enough for reduced recoil, right?  Wrong, for the same weight weapon the recoil energy is now within 25% of that of the 7.62mm NATO round, and 25% recoil can be mitigated through buffer and stock design (reduced felt recoil for the same recoil energy).  So, with good design, you can have a much more powerful round with almost the same felt recoil, so, why down-size?  (In any case the recoil energy is well outside the range of easily controllable, which is about 50%-60% less than 7.62mm NATO.)

And, since physics is physics, and we haven't changed that in the last 70-80 years, all of what is shown here is still true.  We might have a slightly better BC for our 7mm bullet, but that is not going to be in the orders of magnitude, more likely in the number behind the decimal point.  We might be able to package the cartridge in a smaller case, which would be an improvement because the .280/30 really was not all the small of an intermediate cartridge, but the underlying problem is that a 145 gr bullet at 2,800 fps or a 135 gr bullet at 2,900 fps is far better in performance than a 140 gr bullet at 2,600 fps and the recoil energy can be mitigated to be nearly equal.

EDIT:
At it best, improving the British round would yield performance in the 6.5 Grendel class.

So you can mitigate the recoil for the 7.62 but can't do the same for any other cartridge? 25% is 25%. That is a big number.  That goes botg ways.. Your argument is a wash and doesn't make sense.

I’m mostly understanding what you’re getting at, comparing the 7mm Brit cartridge to 7.62 NATO, but surely the Grendel comparison is a typo.

if you look at the bullet drop off and the 110-130 grain bullet fmj or other variation and velocity just numbers they are close and the drop really is close to where the first version of the .280 was at.  a .243 win would be a closer comparison.

If you have a cartridge that 40% better, but the recoil energy is only 25% more (and neither of them will be "controllable" in FA), why would you choose the weaker cartridge?

.243 Winchester is almost equal to 7.62mm NATO in case capacity, theoretically you can get near 7.62mm NATO performance out it.

As to a 139-140 grain bullet out of a .243 Winchester, you'll have to show me the velocity figures, they normally don't go higher than 115.

Also, in order for the British to get the ballistic improvements, the case capacity had to be increased.  I said Grendel because it has a capacity similar to the original British case.

For comparison (L to R): .270 British, .280 British, .280/30, 7mm Optimum, 7mm High Velocity, 7mm Compromise, 7.62mm NATO




EDIT: 7mm Compromise is basically 7mm-08.

Define better.  Lighter weight overall, beneficial for logistics & the rifleman?  More capacity for tracer, allowing longer burnout?  Cheaper, better for the taxpayer?  Everything is a compromise.

Interesting. So all this is to compensate for our lack of tungsten? I'm not saying having improved performance is bad but focusing on one aspect, AP performance, may be folly. Give every fireteam one of those revolver 40mm launchers then.

Until I see the first Chinese "Ironman" suits of level IV from head to toe I will not worry ONLY about AP performance.

The difference in weight between the T65 and the British .280 per 20 round magazine was 1 ounce.

The British .280 had the same head dimensions as the T65, so the magazines were just as wide.  The British .280 is only 1/4 inch shorter than the T65.

The British .280 would not reliably penetrate a 1950 era flak vest at 600 yard, T65 would penetrate that vest out to 1,000 yards (ball ammo, both).

The length of trace was pretty much the same between the two: 1,000 yards.

So you would pick a round that renders your infantryman impotent against peer adversaries at 600 yards, for a saving of one ounce and a quarter inch.  Glad you 're not in charge.

(Note this is the early 135 grain bullet T65, not actual 7.62mm NATO.)

Given that the peer adversaries had already switched to 7.62x39mm, and the US Army today doesn't even train w/ M855A1 past 300 yds for the majority of its troops, 600 yds not going through a US flak vest that the Soviets didn't even issue for decades, that seems like a good trade.  You are quoting the difference in weight for the infantryman.  What's the difference in weight for a company loadout?

The real reason we imposed .308 on NATO was we had a tremendous investment in .30" infrastructure & weapons that was relatively easily converted to .308, as well as a large stockpile of .30-06 we'd made for the invasion of Japan that didn't happen.  That doesn't negate the fact that the British round & rifle were carefully designed in accordance w/ lessons learned from the 2nd WW - which is the same way the Soviets came up w/ 7.62x39mm, the SKS, & the AK-47.

.308 isn't a bad round.  There are better, and there are worse.  But let's not pretend NATO adopted 7.62x51mm for ballistic reasons instead of US budgetary ones.

There is nothing magical about a bullet’s diameter that makes its better or worse than another. The bullet’s design is what matters.

You can have a turd or highly efficient bullet in any diameter.

It is a well documented fact that the AP performance against Soviet ACPs was the driving factor.

That's why 7mm-08 was offered as a last resort.  And, both the French and Canadians were also not keen on switching to 7mm for logistical reasons.

And the weight reduction in a bulk ammunition is less than you think, unless you are also going to resign the ammo cans.  Because the head diameter is the same the same number of rounds fit in a standard M19A1 ammo can, but you need more packaging to fill the ullage, so you save about 3 or 4 ounces per can, so 30 to 35 pounds per pallet.  In reality, there probably would not be any difference.  For planning purposes, there is no difference in weight for a pallet of Caliber .30 M2 and a pallet of 7.62mm M80 in belts.

Very few US infantry in the past have participated in 600m rifle shooting in the field unless it was a large target.  600 is MG or IDF range.  Once again, give the troops whatever you want and all the nice optics you care to; but train them to use whatever it is to its full advantage. Weapons training and qual for the vast majority of the Army is and has been a check the box event only.  There are still Soldiers that can’t load a magazine or mount a CCO so it is not backwards and yet somehow they are supposed to shoot thru imaginary Russian/Chicom body armor at 600m in the field….not on a flat shooting range with windage flags and clearly marked targets at known ranges.
In the end, its the shooter not the weapon.

So, you're telling me nobody as ever used an M60 or M240 beyond 400 yards/meters to engage enemy personnel?

Ya'll seem to forget, if you adopt the British .280 in 1952, there is no 7.62mm NATO MG to shoot at people beyond the .280's effective range of about 400 yards.  The .280 was Britain's do it all cartridge, heavy MG, medium MG, light MG, tank coaxial.  You would be willing to accept a cartridge that will not penetrate a flak vest at 600 yards for a company support weapon?

There is a good reason the Soviets kept the 7.62mm X 54R all these years.

And we wouldn't have kept .30-06 for machineguns?

The average Soldier has been trained and equipped with a rifle and sights / optics to 300 meters, for a long time now. That doesn't mean it's impossible to go longer range, with the right scope and rifle. Mortars, machine guns, DMR and snipers all train to fight at much longer ranges already.

Also the people you are describing are typically cooks and supply people... They are not even a part of the equation here. That's not to say that I disagree with your overall point and think this program is progress.

Can they do this and get a lot of soldiers to shoot out to 1000 yards? If they do it right, it's achievable. That doesn't mean that it's necessary or smart.

The Chinese took all their 30 calibers out. Their MBTs use 5.8. I wouldn’t want to go that far but I suspect 5.8 will outperform 6.8 where it really matters: logistics.

Reading is not your strong point it seems.  Re read the first line.

I think the 6.8 will be a fine round in the M250 MG for the various reasons discussed so far.  I think it is a burden for the rifleman.  These are being fielded as we write this so time will tell soon.

How to say you have no experience in a typical line unit without saying it. Cooks and supply people?  Dude getting grunts qualified is a challenge. Just because you make it thru 11B OSUT does not make you a Palma shooter.  The gaining unit takes that raw 11B and tries to mold it into something useful and depending on that units posture, budget and priority shooting may or may not be a priority unlike the PFT is.