Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 6/26/2003 3:31:28 PM EDT
I was reading that our SOFs were not too happy with the kill performance of their standard issue. The article pointed out that perhaps it was the length of the shorten barrels which were keeping velocity down and fragmentation and therefore overall performance. A local with some "in the know" mentioned to me a new bullet being tested.

Have there been any rumors ("facts") about newly developed and more lethal ammo products coming to our troops???
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 3:40:40 PM EDT
This again! Let me get some popcorn.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 4:16:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LotBoy: This again! Let me get some popcorn.
View Quote
NO Shite??? [:O] I just did a 6 months search (23 pages on "AMMO") and came up empty. Show me the thread and I'll be happy to follow...[snoopy]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:05:10 PM EDT
They are using 77 grain Black Hills ammo just like we are getting to buy in our AR15 group purchase. You guys are WAY behind LOL!
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 6:30:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: They are using 77 grain Black Hills ammo just like we are getting to buy in our AR15 group purchase. You guys are WAY behind LOL!
View Quote
Thanks DevL, I am talking about developmental stuff not today's fodder.
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:04:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/26/2003 7:08:54 PM EDT by GreenTalon]
Brouhaha and tatjana were talking about a new 100grain bullet being tested for use in 1-7 twist barrels. Said military was checking them out.....go to ammo forum and look for those posts (probably 3-4 months ago) Edited cause I searched and found the ballistic tests on it... [url]www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=16&t=145122&w=searchPop[/url]
Link Posted: 6/26/2003 7:11:17 PM EDT
There is a GEL TEST on the 100 gr. in the ammo forum with pics, etc. Should be pinned at the top of the board. Then of course somewhere around there is at least one other thread on a new or current "round" being developed for Mil. use. Nobody who is "in the know" will give out too much info on it yet as I last read!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 4:32:18 AM EDT
Thanks gents!
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 11:58:24 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/27/2003 12:38:28 PM EDT by DevL]
The 100 grain round will not be an issue ammo ever. I know this for certain. The only rounds tested under real consideration are 75, 77 and 86 grains. Unless your talking about the 6.8mm round which will also never be a general issue caliber and only used by certain units.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 12:15:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevL: The 100 grain round will not be an issue ammo ever. I know this for certain.
View Quote
Why not?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 12:40:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 8:35:47 AM EDT by DevL]
Dr. Roberts testing for law enforcement has shown the 100 gr to have a rainbow trajectory that limits its long range use, and reduces its overall effectiveness compared to the 75 or 77 gr bullets.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 12:58:14 PM EDT
I think he wants to know about the 6.8x43mm.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 3:07:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/28/2003 5:51:35 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Sorry it took so long DevL, I haven't had access to this computer since Friday evening. Was gone all day at part one of my CCW class.
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 5:00:25 PM EDT
Will the 100gr load even fit in a magazine?
Link Posted: 6/27/2003 5:19:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Stryfe: Will the 100gr load even fit in a magazine?
View Quote
Yep it is a magazine length load, it does project a LOONG way into the case. But then again so does M856.
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 2:03:56 PM EDT
How's about we use a 55 grain bullet with IMR 4475 (or a modern equal) out a 20" long barrel with 14:1 twist? Apparantly the ARVN that used those AR-15's in 1962 didn't often see anyone get back up!
Link Posted: 7/3/2003 4:09:35 PM EDT
I agree with sgt. Bob...let's give our military back the 55-gr stuff that seems to frag well with all of the various M-16 variants, both short and long barrels.
Link Posted: 7/4/2003 5:25:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2003 5:40:24 AM EDT by 123whisper]
Originally Posted By DevL: Dr. Roberts testing for law enforcement has shown the 100 gr to have a rainbow trajectory that limits its long range use, and reduces its overall effectiveness compared to the 75 or 77 gr bullets.
View Quote
What do you mean reduces its [i]overall[/i] effectiveness? It is hard to shoot at long ranges? We have ACOGs that run out to 800 yards/meters? for 55 grain M193, which is so far out there for that grain bullet that any shooting at that range would be almost experimental, not to mention the complete lack of wounding capability at that range. Couldn't there be a BDC optic made for the 100 grain round? Brouhaha said that he could have pushed the 100 grain bullet up to 2600 fps out of a 20 inch barrel. That is at least 200 fps faster than 7.62x39 and it has a [i]way better[/i] BC. Standard AR15/M16 sight height above bore = 2.6 inches combined with 100 grain bullet @ slightly conservative 2500 fps with a slightly conservative .500 BC. sighted in at 150 yards, it has a max height over sight(minus short ranges) of .7 at 100 yards. It hits 6.75 low at 250 yards with this zero. Not as much of a laser beam as M193, but it still isn't bad. So why is it seen as having reduced overall effectiveness?
Link Posted: 7/4/2003 6:01:54 AM EDT
For the most part M855 is still issued every now and then the 77 gn becomes available to certain folks and it is snarfed up quick and guarded closely.
Link Posted: 7/5/2003 9:26:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2003 5:32:54 AM EDT by danonly]
Originally Posted By AgentFork: I think he wants to know about the 6.8x43mm.
View Quote
Anyone want to explain/ do a short summary of what this round is? [s]Oh, and why 6.8? is that to restrict it from "civilian" use? why not just 6.5? we are talking millimeters, right?[/s] OK, 6.8=277. Hrrmm Anyone wanna take a poke at why the military in all its wisdom has to go and invent a round starting off with one of the least used calibers out there? (Accuracy wise) No doubt if/when the military standardizes this round it will have production standards for accuracy, etc, but I would think for initial testing it would be so much easier (and a better use of the money that i pay in taxes) to use a round such as the 6.5 or 7 mm that has numerous accurate bullet makers, a track record in long range accuracy, blah blah blah. expletive. If they want something with more long range damage, why don't they just go with the 6.5-08 (260 rem)? that will have a much better trajectory than anything that is based off the 5.56 necked up. Plus it has proven ease of feeding. the .223/ 5.56x 45 is a little longer than the 43 in 6.8 x 43. Does this mean the round will be a little larger in diameter to compensate? Sort of the short fat retard military round? I suppose my "attitude" is a little pissy, but some drunk driver totaled my roomates car, ripped his wheel off, then bumped into mine while trying to get home after a long night of drinking. this happened at 2 am. The weird thing is that he was at a bar where my brother is in charge of the sound. Glad my brother is not in charge of the bar, although the police said he was cut off. (A little late, I think) Thanks
Link Posted: 7/5/2003 11:47:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By danonly: Oh, and why 6.8? is that to restrict it from "civilian" use? why not just 6.5? we are talking millimeters, right?
View Quote
6.8mm = .277 = .270 Winchester.
Top Top