Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/8/2002 11:25:27 AM EDT
What do you think should or will be the next rifle round the military picks up? For me I'm going to say the 6mm optimum that I have read about. It will cut the military down to a caliber system for all there rifles be it Infantry rifle , Machine gun and sniper round here is the ballistics date on it 6mm opt Bullet weight 100gr 6mm opt, 62gr 5.56, 147gr 7.62 and 190gr 300win mag Muzzle velocity 3000fps 6mm opt - 100fps slower then the 5.56, 200fps faster then 7.62 and the same as a 300 win mag. Muzzle energy 1998 ft-lbs 6mm opt, 675 ft-lbs more then 5.56, 561 ft-lbs lower then 7.62 and 1799 ft-lbs then 300win mag. Velocity@1200m 1214 fps 6mm opt= 301 fps faster then 5.56, 224 fps faster then 7.62 and the same for 300win mag. Energy@1200m 327 Ft-lbs 6mm opt, 212 ft-lbs more then 5.56, 7 ft-lbs then 7.62 and 294 ft-lbs less then 300win mag. Flight time to 1200m 2.10sec 6mm opt,0.53sec faster then 5.56. 0.44sec faster then 7.62 and the same for 300wim mag. But are military is to dumb to pick up a round like this I only wish they started making this round for an semi-auto rifle like the FAL, AR-15 or AR-10 All info I got was out of Special weapons for military and police #14 2001
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:38:12 AM EDT
I don't see how this data can be correct. MV- 100gr 6mm same as 190 gr .300 WM Ok, but then.. Flight to 1200m- 100gr 6mm same as 190 gr .300 WM I don't get it. That 6mm must have one hell of a coef, to be able to overcome the mass advantage of the .300.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:43:06 AM EDT
I believe there was a "SAW" made by FN back in the 60's that used a 6mm round. It was quite a good performer according to some, but never adopted for the obvious reasons. Just like most good ideas this one was shelved. I happen to agree with you. This would be a very effective round.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 11:56:11 AM EDT
Screw the 190s in the WinMag. This is ancient. Run the table on the 240 grain Sierra out of the WinMag at 2750 fps, then get back to me.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:01:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 12:02:28 PM EDT by SJSAMPLE]
Whatever it is, the next round will be designed to wound, not kill. Cuz everybody knows it takes even more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. [}:D]
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:10:20 PM EDT
I have a feeling that, like many times before, a lot of money will be spent on research, only to conclude that our current 5.56 and 7.62, if with minor improvements, shall remain.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:11:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 12:12:14 PM EDT by Tinker]
I'd say the .260 Remington would be ideal. Fits neatly in diameter between the .308 and the .223, remarkable sectional density for excellent penetration, very low recoil, very good range, all in a short action. A nice range of bullet weights from under 100 grains up to 160 grains. Fans of the DSA St58 could buy one and try it out. All you bolt action fans can get one from Remington, Ruger, Browning. All you traditionalists can lobby for the 6.5x55 Swede cartridge. The case is a bit longer, but otherwise, its pretty much the same.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:20:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: Whatever it is, the next round will be designed to wound, not kill. Cuz everybody knows it takes even more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. [}:D]
View Quote
Thus the next round will be the 22LR [whacko]
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:24:42 PM EDT
Try this. [url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,42424,00.html[/url]
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 12:25:20 PM EDT
The ballistics are only half the equation. What about the logistics? I.e., how much does a round weigh? How many will fit in a magazine the size of an M-16's 30 rounder? In any case, small advantages would not justify a total replacement of all of the US military's rifles, light and medium machineguns, and ammo stockpiles. Uncle Sam will probably stick with the 5.56x45mm round until there's a major jump in technology like a practical caseless round.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 1:11:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 1:19:37 PM EDT
GOD I hate to hear the shit about " it was ment to wound" My father was told this in 1942 when the marines were playing with the 30 carbine. My older brother was told this in 1967 when he first saw an ar... I was told this in 1977 when i went to bootcamp,. It has alwas been a crock and always will be....pat
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 1:43:21 PM EDT
In the article it said that a rifle for the 6mm opt would be no heavier then the M16A2 but with the lethality of a M-14. It also has better penetration then the 5.56 and 7.62 and for the machine gun the tracers can been seen in day light out to 1100-1200 meters.
shooterX308 Screw the 190s in the WinMag. This is ancient. Run the table on the 240 grain Sierra out of the WinMag at 2750 fps, then get back to me.
View Quote
If you want all that recoil that fine by me also that is a heavy load to carry around with you. The 190gr round is the one developed for the Navy Seals.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 2:59:38 PM EDT
We'll be using the current rounds until phasers take over for the same reason the French used the 8mm Lebel in WW2. There's something better out there, but switching is too expensive.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 4:52:17 PM EDT
We will definately issue a ripoff of the Krinkov assault rifle in .17 Rimfire magnum, with electronic sensor sights, and underbarrel wire-guided missile.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:12:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2002 5:13:24 PM EDT by Eastwood123]
neither - I think in the near term (5-20 yrs) we will use the 5.56mm round for the individual weapon. The next step after that is to totally replace the idea of a rifled projectile completely and go with something like what is being tinkered with now for tank main gun replacements. Basically a rail gun. If this type of weapon can be developed into a package the size of say an M16, then we are talking serious firepower here. The OICW idea will continue to develop. I predict that eventually the rifle portion will give way to a hyper-velocity weapon using a rail-gun type design. OICW [url]http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/defgal_000816.shtml[/url] Rail guns for tanks [url]http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news_briefs/jidr9902_01.shtml[/url] [url]http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/5fcs97.pdf[/url]
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:13:26 PM EDT
.25 auto
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:48:35 PM EDT
[img]http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/gallery/000816.jpg[/img] With the OICW, the 5.56mm lower section of the gun seems to be a backup of the air bursting 20mm fragmentation explosives. The 5.56 mm section looks like it only has about a 10 inch barrel. That's not going to get above the magic 2,700 fps number ([url]http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html[/url]): [img]http://www.bushmaster.com/images/faqchart.gif[/img]
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 5:53:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1: What do you think should or will be the next rifle round the military picks up
View Quote
an as yet to be invented 6mm with a 100gn bullet.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 6:56:17 PM EDT
Consider that the rifle cartridges we sue today were being used since the 1860's. They are still using them because nothing better hads come along. I suspect the US Army will be using them into the 2050's.
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:20:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 7:39:42 PM EDT
It will prolly be a long time before NATO adopts a new round to replace 5.56mm, but when it does it will be revolutionary. I do not think that FN's 5.7mm will replace 5.56, but it may replace 9mm as the standard NATO pistol round. I think that the next generation combat rifle will fire a caseless round a velocities at least twice as fast as 5.56. This will be possible because higher chamber pressures will become safer due to new materials such as carbon fiber reinforced graphite epoxy, or maybe even woven nanotubes. I'm also not sure if it will be a traditional bullet, perhaps a fin stabilized flectelet in a sabot such as the Steyr ACR. Point being that I think the current generation of cased cartridges will be the last. I also think generation after next will be the last generation of powder burning weapons. ( Rail guns, LASERS, or something that we aren't expecting) The future as always holds a lot of promise. Do you think someone from 1902 could ever have predicted the capabilities of the M-4, G-11, or the OCIW?
Link Posted: 1/8/2002 8:33:23 PM EDT
I'd love to see the 9mm get the boot and something more potent get the nod. I think with these people that pick what caliber we use done belive in gray only black and white.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 1:35:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan: an as yet to be invented 6mm with a 100gn bullet.
View Quote
6mm in 100 gr weights have been around for years in such rounds as the .243 Win and 6mm Rem.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 2:06:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: Whatever it is, the next round will be designed to wound, not kill. Cuz everybody knows it takes even more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. [}:D]
View Quote
What he said
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 2:18:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Q-Man: With the OICW, the 5.56mm lower section of the gun seems to be a backup of the air bursting 20mm fragmentation explosives. The 5.56 mm section looks like it only has about a 10 inch barrel. That's not going to get above the magic 2,700 fps number ([url]http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html[/url]):
View Quote
Yep, thats why i predict that as soon as the OICW comes on line, they will be looking to replace the rifle portion with some type of new kinetic energy weapon. The most likely candidate is a rail gun type weapon. However, we will probably see rail guns on tank turrets first.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 3:38:47 AM EDT
I have that article on the 6mm's considered back in the day. I do the 6x45, a 6mm on the 30 Rem. case, the .243, the 6mmPPC, & the 6mmBR Rem. The 243 is the round that the 308 (7.62x51) should have been/ Regardless, I hope everyone gets a weapon like the one shown above. I'd have a serious time with a bunch of those in my field of view, with my Beretta 308, of course!
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:26:50 AM EDT
Both .243 and 25.06 have hogher Muzzle Velocities and almost twice the umph of a 5.56 while being around the same size. BOth also fragment. A .270 is a mean MF. It kicks like a mule. It is designed to penetrate deep. This won't work well on skinny somalis, etc...but might be usefull for shooting through cover. If you want something really good, try 470 Cheyenne ? or 600 Nitro. Huge ass bullet and alot of force. Maybe .50 shrunk from 99mm to let's say 60mm would make a nice round. I copuld see a 9x51mm Round or an 11x63mm Round as usefull. a .50 shrunk would be 12.5x60mm. It would be nice to give a soldier or two a real mean bullet. a 9x51mm could be used in an Assault Rifle. I doubt it would be intermediate power though.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:43:36 AM EDT
just to play the part of devil's advocate why not 4.7 mm caseless ?
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 4:44:36 AM EDT
[img]http://home.noreno.org:800/images/bullets.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 5:04:10 AM EDT
Should use BB guns....
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 7:44:02 AM EDT
My vote is for a .260 Remington, .257 Roberts (Ackerly Improved), 6.5-08, 6.5-284. Or even the 6.5x55mm which might be the best of the lot. The Advantage of a 6.2 - 6.5mm round is the efficiency in terms of sectional density vs. weight. Higher sectional density pays off in terms of penetration and long range ballistics. So much combat shooting is done where the Bad guys are behind good cover.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 8:11:19 AM EDT
257 Roberts Improved is a favorite chambering here, along with 25-06. Longer cases mean longer actions.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 9:54:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE: Whatever it is, the next round will be designed to wound, not kill. Cuz everybody knows it takes even more enemy soldiers to care for the wounded. [}:D]
View Quote
Dude, all our rounds have been designed to wound, not kill, since the .45-70 replaced thde .50-70. .50-70, now that's a man's round . . .
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 9:58:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tayous1: If you want all that recoil that fine by me also that is a heavy load to carry around with you. The 190gr round is the one developed for the Navy Seals.
View Quote
Recoil is not significantly worse than the 190s, which is not a problem for me. As far as 'heavy' goes, not sure I get your drift there. And, if its up to me, the SEALS and others are going to be trying some 240s in the future. Like I said, do a ballistics table and get back to me.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 10:02:40 AM EDT
I still want an AR-15 upper in 6mm PPC. The military wouldn't switch - because of reduced magazine capacity - but the numbers look really sweet for this round. It seems about the best rifle cartridge that can practically be stuffed in an AR mag well. Still plenty of velocity, a bit more weight, higher SD, ballistic coefficient. I want one. I think it'd be an excellent consideration for Uncle Sam too.
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 10:28:06 AM EDT
I wonder if the future trend might be toward more rounds and more specialization. I know the logistical problems with this approach but still I wonder. Anyway I believe the next round for serious sniping will be the .408 CheyTac - 420grn. Pretty close to the .50 cal in performance but about one-third lighter. [smoke]
Link Posted: 1/9/2002 7:17:54 PM EDT
Don't they already make a .243 AR Upper ? I would like to see one in 25.06 and one in .50BMG. By .50BMG, I mean a real MF, not those Bolt-Action ones like Barret makes. They would need to lengthen the front mag well to accept a 99mm round vs. a 45mm round. But, it would be kinda cool to have a .50BMG M16. That would do alot of damage.
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:12:55 PM EDT
I doubt it will be a much more powerful round than the 5.56. Recruits already whine about the "hard recoil."
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:17:21 PM EDT
Guns??? Were going Star Trek "Soldier!! Put that Tazer on stun!!" Wonder if the Tazers will have Bayo. lugs??
Link Posted: 1/10/2002 3:28:27 PM EDT
[b]".50-70, now that's a man's round . . . "[/b] Here in the Swamp, it's the 50-110 and 50-140.
Top Top