In an era of ‘shock and awe’ warfare where a deadly cocktail of sophisticated combat aircraft and smart munitions can deliver unprecedented destructive firepower, any debate about military small arms calibres may seem redundant. However, recent asymmetric campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan show that collateral damage seriously impedes efforts to win the hearts and minds of the local population, something that has proved essential to the achievement of wider military and political goals. This not only mitigates against the indiscriminate use of area weapons, but reasserts the importance of the humble infantry soldier equipped with small arms capable of neutralising enemy threats with surgical precision. The need to select the optimum mix of weapons and ammunition has understandably re-ignited interest in small arms calibres.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan also represent the first sustained combat use of the NATO 5.56 mm (SS109 / M855) round selected in 1979. Previously, this calibre had only seen service in Vietnam where most engagements took place at short ranges and seldom beyond 200 metres. This calibre was controversial choice at the time and despite a series of upgrades remains so today.
The thinking behind 5.56 mm ammunition is simple and compelling: the more rounds a soldier has, the greater his chance of hitting a target. With this in mind, the USA developed a round that would be smaller and lighter than the existing NATO 7.62 mm cartridge. The new calibre utilised a very small bullet (4 grams) fired at very high velocity (940 meters per second). To compensate for low mass, lethality was dependent on the cavitation effect of the bullet, i.e. the size of the hole created as it passes through a target. The original 5.56 mm round, the US M193, was designed to become unstable upon impact. This meant that it would tumble after hitting a target to create a much larger wound track and thus inflicting increased damage. It was a highly innovative concept which allowed soldiers to carry significantly more rounds for a given weight of ammunition.
When NATO adopted 5.56 mm, reservations about performance were overcome by redesigning the bullet to offer better penetration against armoured plate. This was achieved through greater stabilisation and the addition of a steel core. NATO testing showed that the new SS109/ M855 round could defeat a steel helmet at 500 metres.
It seems hard to believe, but NATO 5.56 mm ammunition did not receive a proper baptism of fire until 14 years after it was adopted. This happened during the US ‘Blackhawk down’ incident in Mogadishu in 1993. US soldiers reported that it had often taken multiple hits to incapacitate a single enemy combatant. British forces may have experienced the same problems during an equally brief but intense skirmish in Sierra Leone during 2000, but in both instances there simply wasn’t sufficient data to draw any conclusions.
However, since military operations began in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002, a stream of negative feedback concerning 5.56 mm ammunition’s effectiveness has reached the public domain. Much criticism is due to the US Army’s adoption of the short-barrel M4A1 carbine, which has a 14.’5” barrel versus 20” of the standard M16A4 rifle; (a shorter barrel is likely to reduce the ballistic performance of any ammunition). Then, in 2007, operational reports from British troops serving in Afghanistan, supported by the UK MoD’s own analysis, suggested that 5.56 mm ammunition performance was also a problem for British soldiers. Then a secret German report, made public in 2009, showed that the Bundeswehr had experienced the same issues in Afghanistan. Problems with 5.56 mm ammunition fall into four categories:
1. Lack of effective range. More than 50% of infantry engagements in Afghanistan take place at ranges above 300 meters. When 5.56 mm ammunition was adopted, it was believed that 90% of combat engagements would take place under 300 meters. It frequently results in situations where ISAF troops cannot return fire when engaged by enemy snipers. 5.56 mm ammunition is meant to be effective at 500 metres, but combat feedback suggests that this is not the case.
2. Inconsistent lethality. There have been instances where enemy combatants have not been neutralised by 5.56 mm bullets, sometimes despite receiving multiple hits. This has happened at longer ranges, but also, surprisingly, at shorter ranges.
3. Poor barrier penetration. In certain situations, 5.56 mm ammunition has been defeated or deflected by barriers obscuring a target, including car windows, car doors, light masonry and woodwork. Even when a 5.56 mm succeeds in penetrating an intermediate barrier, its energy may be depleted so that lethality is compromised.
4. Inadequate suppressive effect. The UK MoD’s own analysis suggests that insurgent forces are not suppressed by 5.56 mm ammunition, whereas larger calibres have a more notable psychological effect.
Independent testing by US ballistic experts using gelatine blocks to simulate human tissue was conducted to examine lethality concerns. The results showed that NATO 5.56 mm ammunition does not yaw consistently. Sometimes, the bullet will travel straight through a target, like a hypodermic syringe, making an extended hole, but inflicting limited damage and failing to incapacitate. This is consistent with UK reports of malnourished Taliban insurgents running away despite being shot with several 5.56 mm rounds.
The UK MoD responded to criticism in late 2009 by publicly stating that it was entirely satisfied with the performance of Radway Green’s L2A2 version of the NATO standard SS109 5.56 x 45 mm round. Since that time, there have been a number of interesting developments which suggest that the above concerns are more than justified.
The US Army has now fielded an improved 5.56 mm round, the M855A1 EPR cartridge, while the US Marine Corps has developed its own improved ammunition, the Mk 318 SOST MOD 0 round. Both rounds provide American troops with better terminal effectiveness and barrier penetration at all combat ranges. With greater length and mass, they incorporate what is effectively an open tip bullet design enabling them to fragment upon impact. This allows energy to be transferred into the target more reliably, although their legality under the terms of the Hague Convention is questionable.
In August of this year, the UK MoD announced the intention to field its own improved 5.56 mm ammunition, the so-called “Dirty Harry” round, which also offers improved performance thanks to a longer, heavier bullet. Compared to US ammunition, the new UK round does not have an open tip. Although better than the existing L2A2 round and legal, the new round is likely to be less effective than its American counterparts because the bullet does not fragment.
While such improvements are likely to be welcomed by troops on the ground, there is an emerging consensus that 500 meters may be the maximum effective range for all 5.56 mm calibre weapons.
When 5.56 mm ammunition was adopted, future war scenarios envisaged mostly urban combat engagements and limited open country skirmishes, so a maximum range of 300 meters was seen as sufficient. The conflict in Afghanistan has challenged this belief. Vast open planes, high mountains overlooking wide valleys, plus bright sunshine and clear visibility enable small arms engagements to take place at much longer distances. Taliban insurgents already know this and have been using snipers equipped with full-calibre 7.62 mm x 54R ammunition very effectively to engage ISAF troops at ranges well above the capabilities of the latter’s 5.56 mm weapons, typically at 600 meters plus. This suggests the need for small arms that are effective at 1,000 metres.
US, UK and German forces have responded to this threat by readopting 7.62 mm weapons. The previous NATO standard calibre (the 7.62 mm x 51 M80 ball round) was never criticised for a lack of performance. On the contrary, it was only ever supplanted by 5.56 mm x 45 ammunition because the former calibre was felt to be too big, heavy and powerful.
The UK has now acquired a 7.62 mm AR-10 derivative from LMT, the L129A1, as a ‘Sharpshooter’ rifle. Equipped with the latest x6 optical combat gun sights, this weapon represents a significant step-up from the old FN FAL or L1A1 SLR rifle used prior to the adoption of the L85A1 SA80. However, with only 440 in service, they are in scarce supply. The US Army has also reissued a 7.62 mm rifle, the M14, which it used before adopting the M16. Other NATO forces deployed in Afghanistan have also readopted 7.62 mm as well as other large calibre weapons, including .338” sniper rifles and .50” machine guns. Such weapons give troops a significant long-range capability.
The resulting tool box of small arms is often described as a ‘golf bag’ approach to weapon selection. For short range and urban use, troops have 5.56 mm weapons. For long-range, open country engagements, they have 7.62 mm weapons.
Proponents of intermediate calibres believe that the dual calibre fleet of infantry small arms is a flawed approach. What happens when soldiers equipped with 5.56 mm weapons come under fire from an enemy at long-range? And vice-versa, what happens when soldiers with heavy 7.62 mm weapons are involved in close hand-to-hand fighting? Dual calibre solutions may result in situations where only half of a squad / section can bring their weapons to bear.
The procurement cost of multiple weapon types, the extra logistical burden, additional training requirements and increased weight of typical combat loads suggest that a reduction in ammunition types is desirable. British forces are not merely using 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm ammunition, but also 9 mm, 8.59 mm, 12.7 mm and 12-gauge shot gun shells.
The alternative view is that a single type of ammunition that lies somewhere between 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm could be a better option. A calibre of between 6.5 and 7 mm is seen as the ideal compromise. This point of view is often based on the previous UK development of 7 mm ammunition designed for the aborted EM2 rifle project in the early 1950s. UK MoD tests unequivocally showed that that 7 mm was effective at long ranges while weighing less than full-calibre alternatives and with lower recoil. Ballistic experts believe that a modern version of this calibre could even exceed the performance of 7.62mm ammunition at 1,000 meters while weighing 50% less.
The view of many soldiers, especially those with experience of larger calibre ammunition, tends to advocate a wholesale return to 7.62 mm ammunition. The truth is they want a round that is combat proven and which offers the best possible chance of rapidly incapacitating an enemy. The rule of thumb is: the larger the calibre, the more certain the terminal effectiveness. However, any bullet has to hit a target before it can be effective.
The rationale for the adoption of 5.56 mm ammunition was increased hit probability. Few would disagree with the statement that a hit with a small calibre round is always better than a miss with a larger calibre round. The problem with larger calibre rounds is that they have much greater recoil. This can cause shooter discomfort and limit shooting effectiveness. There’s no point in having a large round if you can’t hit the target with it. Perhaps the most important factor in favour of a small calibre is that troops can carry 200 rounds of 5.56 mm ammunition versus only 100 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition.
To be certain of rapidly incapacitating a target, any bullet (5.56 mm or 7.62 mm) needs to hit the central nervous system (CNS). That means it must strike the head or upper torso, which represents a small and narrow target area. This makes shot placement very important; something that most NATO armies’ training emphasises. With the adoption of optical combat gun sights, marksmanship standards have improved so that more experienced shooters can reliably hit the enemy in the desired spot. While soldiers using 7.62 mm weapons can also shoot more accurately than when they had iron sights, the ease with which soldiers can be trained to shoot accurately with low-recoil ammunition tends to favour 5.56 mm weapons over 7.62 mm weapons.
Perhaps the reason why many soldiers nevertheless prefer 7.62 mm ammunition is because of what it does if it fails to hit the CNS: it makes a much larger hole that is likely to cause rapid incapacitation if not death through catastrophic blood loss. In contrast, if 5.56 mm ammunition fails to hit the CNS, it may not create such a large hole or reliably incapacitate. In many combat situations, stress may prevent the kind of accurate shooting achieved so easily on the range back at barracks.
So does a small calibre give you a better chance of hitting a vital spot or does a larger calibre make up for it in case you don’t? The arguments that favour one calibre over the other are compelling. It is hard to choose which is the right one.
It could be said that neither calibre is ideal. 7.62 mm may be too large given its weight, recoil and energy. The bullet is effective well beyond 1,000 metres, with few soldiers possessing the shooting ability to hit targets at that distance. Conversely, 5.56 mm may be too small, because of range and lethality issues.
Quite possibly, the latest versions of 5.56 mm ammunition may fix performance concerns, but even if this calibre is now lethal at to 500 metres, NATO troops in Afghanistan still need a long-range capability to 1,000 metres. A round smaller than 7.62 mm (e.g. 7 mm) could be made lighter and with less recoil without compromising range or lethality requirements. Similarly, a round larger than 5.56 mm (e.g. 6.5 mm) could also have greater range and more consistent lethality without imposing a significant weight and recoil burden on troops using it.
Those who advocate the ‘golf bag’ approach to fielding multiple calibres argue that an intermediate round has all the disadvantages of both large and small calibre ammunition. The author’s view is that, whether a dual or single calibre solution is preferred, 5.56 mm may simply be too small to achieve consistent results against human targets.
What also makes the small arms debate increasingly relevant is that many UK units are firing more than a million rounds of ammunition per month. The wear and tear on the current fleet of weapons is intense. If the current tempo of operations continues, then the anticipated replacement date for SA80 of 2020 may need to be bought forward. Given long and drawn out procurement timetables, the MoD is already starting to think what should replace the SA80 family. This makes now a good time to reopen the calibre discussion.
Concerns about ammunition performance are unrelated to the previous criticism of SA80. The story surrounding its conception, development, deployment and failure is an object lesson in how not to procure a weapon system. However, after hundreds of millions of pounds of additional expenditure, the latest versions of SA80, the L85A2 and L85A3, are at least reliable and accurate. Unfortunately, the only accolade that can be attached to this weapon is that it is the world’s heaviest assault rifle. As good as it may now be, there are many newer, better-designed systems that totally outclass it.
One key future design requirement is the need to reduce infantry loads. This tends to favour the retention of small calibre weapons rather than adopting new larger calibre ones. The US Army is already looking at future developments. One particular new system that is attracting interest is the Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) program. This is centred around case-telescoped and caseless ammunition prototypes that offer between 40%-50% weight reduction versus existing 5.56 mm cartridges. The technology is calibre neutral so it would be easy to change to a larger calibre if required. The increased complexity of LSAT technology means that it needs a considerable amount of further testing before it becomes a proven battle-worthy technology. That said, it offers a unique opportunity to select the ideal calibre.
Other new developments include more powerful propellants and lightweight steel and aluminium cartridge cases. These could be lower cost, lower risk options compared to LSAT while saving the same amount of weight.
The most critical factor affecting future weapon and ammunition choices is not user requirements but the politics of change. It is unlikely that any NATO member would independently select a new calibre without endorsement from other allies, especially the USA. However, what the USA decides to do is likely to influence the rest of its allies. It should be noted that the USA unilaterally adopted 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm calibres, effectively forcing the rest of NATO to do the same.
In seeking to field new infantry small arms, the US DoD recently announced that, it would evaluate calibres other than 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm. These include 6.5 mm, 6.8 mm and 7 mm. Given that the USA previously developed two very good intermediate calibre prototypes, the .276 Peterson in the 1930s and the 6 mm SAWS rounds in the 1970s, it could be a case of third time lucky for the USA and NATO.
In summary, many NATO armies have bigger fish to fry than reviewing small arms choices. More helicopters and FRES Utility are certainly a greater priority at this time than any SA80 replacement. So, the most likely scenario is the retention of both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm weapons. However, if China, Russia or Iran were to adopt an intermediate calibre, this might well be the catalyst for change that is needed to overcome an uneasy status quo.
Think Defence 
The 5.56 received its “baptism of fire” during the Vietnam war, where the AR-15/M-16 was first fielded under combat conditions (alongside the 7.62mm M-14). The heavy semi-auto M-14 was deemed too heavy (as was the comparable FN FAL) for jungle ops and although the early M-16s suffered from various teething problems, the .223/5.56mm popularity grew mostly because of it’s light weight and short rifle/carbine chassis.
Anything out of range of the 5.56mm was to be dealt with by 7.62mm machine gunners and platoon marksmen or snipers. Or so the theory went anyway.
Having carried both the FN FAL 7.62mm in my younger years and C-7 (M-16) 5.56mm *and* being lucky enough to have fired both 6.5mm and 6.8mm SPC (on a range only for evalutaion), I have to say the latter is ideal.
Ballistics for the 6.8 SPC are roughly the same as a light version of the ubiquitous .308/7.62 yet you don’t need a heavy rifle chassis to absorb the recoil and stresses. Replacement uppers for M-16 style weapons are available off the shelf (via Barrett, Colt, H&K) so in theory it should be easy-peasy to re-chamber.
But of course, in defense, things are never easy.
Just FYI, Holland uses a heavy 5.56mm for their newly modified C-7/SRIM and .338 AW for platoon marksmen to deal with +300m ranges.
LikeLike
Marcasse,
The M193 5.56 mm round was used in the Vietnam. The NATO SS109 / M855 5.56 mm round was not fielded until the 1980s. It was the NATO 5.56 mm round that was not battle tested until the 1990s. I apologise for not making this clearer.
The 6.8 mm Remington SPC fixes all lethality issues with 5.56 mm. You’re right, it is like a lower-powered 7.62 mm round. The concern is that the 6.8 mm round has the same lack of range as 5.56 mm. Its maximum range is 300-500 metres depending on barrel length of the weapon used to fire it. Now that the USA has produced the improved M855A1 round, the 6.8 mm round is all but dead in terms of US military adoption.
The 6.5 mm Grendel is an excellent round. It is effective at 1,000 metres, but short range lethality is apparently not as good as the 6.8 mm. It needs further development. But it is definitely the basis of an improved NATO round.
LikeLike
I think that both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC rounds are compromised by being designed to fit an AR-15 action / mag well and a better solution would be to either resurect the .280 british round and design a gun from the ground up or stick with the dual 5.56 / 7.62 NATO approach until new technologies such as cased telescopic mature. The problem with the latter idea is that the record of experimental cartridge programs has been one of dismal failure.
A new bullpup with ambidextrous ejection would be the best idea since it’s shorter than a conventional rifle and the balance is far less upset when you hang a grenade launcher under the barrel.
LikeLike
To my (uninformed) mind, Golf bag is the best approach.
It can still be a standardised golf bag, but golf bag it must remain.
Are two rounds enough?
Well as the author says, we dont have two rounds at the moment anyway.
We have 12.7mm at the high end,
7.62 at the mid high
5.56 at the mid low
4.4 at the low?
We already have belt fed machine guns at the lower mid level, and sniper rifles at the highest.
Just formalise what already exists
Pistol, PDW and Carbines can be chambered in low
Carbines, Standard Rifles and “Para” Machine guns can be chambered in 5.56
Standard Rifles, General Machine Guns and DMW can be chambered in 7.62
Heavy Machine Guns and Sniper Rifles can be chambered in 12.7
Make as many componants “common” as possible.
I relise its not very “Standard”, but your expoecting a single weapon to be effective at 1-1000m, thats like expecting a mortar to be effective from 100m to 100km at one calibre.
Theres no reson we cant re-engineer a 7.62 round to be a caseless telescoping round. (Is there?)
Obviously, if a full platoon tramps around the Afgfhan plains with PDW’s, they’re going to be in trouble, but I hope your average paras are more capable than that.
LikeLike
Monty – good point.
On the “Golf Bag” principle, that kind of already exists, if one counts all platoon and company (Coy) weapons.
Depending on Coy type of course, but a Coy usually has 60-81mm mortars, 40mm (automatic) grenade lauchers and (dis)mounted .50cal HMGs for longer ranged, suppressive fire.
And that’s not counting any AIFVs and MBTs that may be supporting.
Looking at this whole picture, the 5.56mm would be sufficient – even if short ranged and lacking ‘stopping power’. Here light weight trumps lethality.
Unfortunately, Afghanistan has turned into a light infantry “COIN” war, where small dispersed units lack the support of their organic Coy/Bn weapon support, and in general have to make due with their own 5.56 rifles and SAW/LMGs.
So I guess the question is this; is COIN going to be the norm, and do we need to “upgun” the infantryman because of that, or will combined arms return and is an improved 5.56mm cartridge sufficient?
LikeLike
Marcase
But COIN in a city is very different to COIN in the countryside.
LikeLike
Speaking with all the certanty and authority of one who’s millitary expernce consists of one druken paintballing session….I
I would question whether the Golf bag analogy works.
1) It must really complicate logistics
2) I doubt if a 7.62mm is actally useless at short range (maybe more cumbersome and less good = more likley given the other guy is as well trained likely to get you killed; but actually useless?)
3) whereas 5.56 is actually apparently ignored at long ranges by the Taliban.
4) The original 5.56 v 7.62 tests done by the US were pretty definitive about close range combat, but they were M14 v M16, how would a modern bullpup 7.62 (say KalTec)perform? it would not break the bank to find out by repeating those tests.
5) Golf bag asumes you have the luxury of time and space to select your weapons, combat I am told is a lot more chaotic and results in “fire everything you’ve got at the guy who is fireing at you”. Eg use of Milan as an anti bunker weapon in Falklands. (Apparantly causing horror in the treasury at the cost per weapon fired).
6)Golf bag assumes you can supply all these weapons in the field and resuply the ammo – at least part of the problem in Afghan.
7) Body armour will soon take big leap forward with non-newtonian fluids, and carbon nano tubes likely to be comming to a battlefield ner you in the next 5 years.
Even 7.62 will struggle with that.
Whereas A Williams arguments in favour of 6.5 Grendal seem very persuasive; I am very suspicious of wizzbang new gun technologies, since I was a kid Caseless/folded/rocket propelled new bullets were going to replace conventional rounds.
LikeLike
I was going to write a piece on this, except just about section, platoon, company level small arms, not the calibers per se.
Admin – you missed 1 point about the SS109 – it was not designed to kill out right. I was designed for the cold war, for full out war against the Warsaw pact. As such, and because it is well known that troops in trained armies fight “for each other”, the aim was a round that would wound, thus actually taking three men out of the immediate fight, as two guys provide immediate aid / evac to their buddy.
Marcase has a good point – if your going to engage in “wars of choice” in far flung places, are they going to be COIN affairs with restricted ROE for bigger weapons ?
This has a potential large impact, because generally, small arms are for “fighting through” in British Army vernacular, for taking on the enemy at close range. Medium to long range should be the tasking of machine guns and grenade launchers, up to the company mortar etc.
In this respect we have had issues of course. The LSW being magazine fed was found to be too accurate for traditional LMG suppressive roles, and yet the Minimi version we bought was the short barralled “para” version, which is definitely have ballistics issues with the SS109. Hence to the return to the ‘good old’ days of lugging around the 7.62mm GPMG in bipod mounted “light” role (which anyone who has ever carried one will know is a rather laughable label !).
For once the UOR approach is the right one – we have upped the caliber of specialist bolt action sniper rifles, and now procured 7.62mm semi-auto “designated marksman” rifle – although I would like to see these issued on a scale of 2 per platoon HQ section through-out the infantry.
Even better though, would be a nice big purchase of 7.62mm version of the Minimi, with the full length barrel. Let the “armoured” infantry carry 5.56mm Para LSW’s in the back of their Warriors, as they have plenty of “long range” back up in each vehicle.
As for whole sale small arms caliber change, I agree with Admin, we have better things to spend money on.
LikeLike
Jed, check the author of this post, it’s not me, which is why, lets face it, it is pretty good!!
This tweaks my commonality nose a bit. We don’t even have compatibility at a calibre level with link and ball being different I think, plus tracer. Does the new sharpshooter rifle actually use the same ammunition as the GPMG, not sure?
We have too many calibres, we are already massively overloading our infantry so for the argument comes down to weight reduction across a section and logistics commonality. Improving lethality would be a bonus
If they can solve the heat transfer and moisture absorption issues with caseless/plastic cased rounds then I think this is equally worth some limited research
LikeLike
JED
This is not the first forum or the first time I have read or heard the below.
“The view of many soldiers, especially those with experience of larger calibre ammunition, tends to advocate a wholesale return to 7.62 mm ammunition. The truth is they want a round that is combat proven and which offers the best possible chance of rapidly incapacitating an enemy”.
As an armchair warrior that sounds pretty persuasive to me.
“Medium to long range should be the tasking of machine guns and grenade launchers, up to the company mortar etc.”
This asumes these are available, it appears in Afghan they are sometimes not.
Given the argument that the guns are wearing out any way the cash will have to be spent on replacing them- (it won’t be a lot in real terms)why not adress the issue of calibre at the same time?
LikeLike
Whilst the L85 may be the heaviest standard issue rifle in the world, it also happens to be the most accurate. The two things are not unrelated and as the article points out, accuracy is necessary.
…Although saying that it does get a little tiring holding an L85 for long periods.
Anyway, as the article points out the USA will really decide what all of NATO will do here, so there really any point to the UK discussing this? Would we really go for a different calibre (unless we managed to get most of our European allies on board)?
LikeLike
Let me be lazy and just drop links to my earlier writings on the topic. The small arms calibre debate is as old and as tiring as “wheels vs. tracks” or “which is the best MBT?”.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/small-arms-calibre-discusson-tony.html
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/01/08/a-summary-of-infantry-rifle-caliber-discussions-and-relevant-wound-ballistics/
One of the good things about having an old blog is that sometimes you can simply lazily point at an old blog post (or four) instead of writing lengthy responses. 🙂
LikeLike
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/infantry-combat-ranges.html
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2009/01/modern-small-arms-calibers.html
(blog didn’t allow for four links in one comment -.-)
LikeLike
The Russians and Chinese re-chambered to different calibers as well. The Russian 5.45×39 is well-known by now, the Chinese 5.8mm not so much.
(Shamelessly cut & pasted from StrategyPage);
“The QBZ-95 is unusual in several respects. It’s a Bullpup design, meaning the 30 round magazine is behind the trigger and overall length is 30 inches (compared to 34.2 inches for the AK-47 and 38.8 inches for the M-16).
But even more unusual is the cartridge, it’s a 5.8mm round developed in China. The Chinese experimented a lot during the 1980s, with new cartridges of different calibers (from 5.5mm to 6mm) and settled on the 5.8mm round in 1989.
The QBZ-95 weighs 8.3 pounds loaded. There is a light machine-gun version that uses a longer barrel and a drum magazine. This weapon weighs 11 pounds loaded, but is awkward to use because of the heavy ammo drum sitting behind the trigger. There is also a “carbine” version with a shorter barrel.
The QBZ-95 is also a complicated piece of machinery, with, as some users have reported, “too many parts” (especially compared to the AK-47.) The 30 round magazine, sitting behind the trigger, makes it awkward to fire from the prone position.
The new 5.8mm cartridge does not appear to be much more effective than the short 7.62mm used in the AK-47, or the 5.56 round used in the M-16.”
LikeLike
DominicJ – Indeed it is.
During the Balkans, (counter-)sniper teams still required a good heavy round – even though they weren’t allowed to use (counter) sniper fire.
And during the Iraqi MOUTs the US fielded hundreds of 7.62mm M-14 EBRs to supplement the M-16 on ops both inside and outside of cities.
It’s perhaps noteworthy that the US Army favors the M-4 carbine, while the US Marines prefer the full-length, long barrel M-16A4.
Which is an interesting difference.
LikeLike
Not sure if it was clear
When I say “Golf Bag” I mean a company base should have a selection of weapons, and the platoon about to patrol should pick a selection of appropriate weapons.
LikeLike
A few points about comments made:
Jed,
This old chestnut, about 5.56 mm being designed to wound rather than kill is very interesting. As you can imagine, I did my homework as carefully as I could before putting finger to keyboard. I can find no mention in any NATO or MoD reference that wounding to the enemy instead of killing him to tie up additional manpower required to evacuate him from the battlefield was ever part of the official strategy, policy or rationale for adopting a small calibre. Indeed, when 5.56 mm was first mooted as a NATO calibre, the suggestion was that it was as lethal as 7.62 mm due to its propensity to tumble / yaw. So, the wounding theory is probably no more than an urban myth that 5.56 mm apologists fall back on!
Ixion,
Excellent point about new body armour technology. This is likely to be a major factor driving choice of next generation calibres and weapons. A 7.62 mm round manufactured with same components as a NATO 5.56 mm cartridge, i.e. a bullet with a steel core, should have no problems penetrating any level of armour that affords general mobility to the wearer! This is therefore another factor that favours a larger calibre versus a small one.
Sven Ortmann,
Yes, this subject is well-worn. But since we need to save money and to save weight on the battlefield, reviewing the calibres we use now and are likely to use in future scenarios could provide a useful means of reducing combat loads while increasing effectiveness of troops on the ground. Given that everything is up for grabs in the SDR, I felt that this topic merited revisiting.
A few other minor points
7.62 mm ammunition is very effective at short ranges – if it hits the target. However, it is very difficult to control 7.62 mm weapons in the shoulder when firing automatic bursts. This is why the old SLR (L1A1 FN FAL) did not have an automatic capability in British service and why this calibre is less good for urban CQB. Issues with 5.56 mm short range lethality explain why the UK recently acquired combat shotguns.
The 7.62 mm rounds fired by the GPMG is the same as that fired by L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle: M80 NATO ball ammunition.
There is a current UK solicitation for a lightweight 7.62 mm machine gun. The US M60E4 and Belgain 7.62 mm Minimi are both in contention. Heckler & Koch has just released a brand new lightweight 7.62 MM GPMG, the HK121.
Finally, the Chinese 5.8 mm round has performance issues as does their bullpup assault rifle. They have recently developed a new AK-clone that fires 5.8 mm instead. The bullpup design may be discontinued. As an ex-UK infantry officer with experience of all the weapons discussed, I am not a fan of bullpups. The ergonomics are far less intuitive and certainly with the L85A2, the weight is too far back. I find I can shoot just as accurately with an HK416 with a 16″ barrel as i can with an SA80 with a 20″ barrel.
LikeLike
We have to ask ourselves what will give the greatest improvement in mission effectiveness for a given change in a soldier’s carried weight, cost and logistics.
Staying with a lighter round produces a lighter load for a given number of rounds, which improves the mobility of overloaded troops. Or it allows you to spend kgs on better body armor or improved optics, radios or other gear.
Can your average infantryman even be trained to consistently hit a target with partial cover under combat conditions with a rifle at 3-500m, regardless of caliber?
LikeLike
B Smitty
The three PDW’s to one support fires per section route is a pretty reasonable setup in a lot of situations.
I believe Jed was a big proponant of it.
A 40mm Grenade Launcher / HMG / Sniper Rifle beats a gaggle of AK at 800m and a gaggle of P90’s beats a gaggle of AK at 20m
LikeLike
Nobody going to comment on bullet design then? Um. FMJ vs hollow point. I just can’t see any mention of the USMC’s new SOST round in the article. Sorry if its there. A larger calibre isn’t always the answer to lethality.
Further it is hard enough to make considered shots at range, never mind when the “targets” are firing back. The thinking that brought about the adoption of 5.56mm is that infantry fire is about suppression to fix the enemy in position so that something larger can “stonk” (lovely word that) them.
Personally I think 6.8SPC is the way to go. Spotting who is shooting at you beyond 300mtrs is hard enough. The majority don’t need a round that can reach past that.
LikeLike
Without perusing the previous comments. I believe it has been proven that the Remington 6.8 SPR, which itself was developed from the British round designed for the EM2, has the required range and lethality. I also believe that this round has also been further developed to a higher standard at about 6.75.
The only reason that I can think of for not adopting this round is that the Yanks are looking at some form of the old HK research into rounds that are encased in propellant (in the HK case they were looking at a square profile propellant charge …. I think!). Anyway this, to me, appears to be the reason for some delay. No doubt when they have decided the rest of us will follow as the article suggests!!
In short I have to agree with the (my) perceived thrust of the article.
LikeLike
I am in favour of a new – or the resurection of an old – intermediate round rather than the ‘golf bag’ approach if only on the grounds of cost! A decent 7mm round firing a well-designed bullet can replace 7.62 and 5.56 as the basic round for the entire infantry squad ie assault rifle and LMG (for which you want a good high capacity drum mag. No LMG should be belt fed).
As for the US forcing whatever they want on NATO, I’m not so sure. Both the UK and France will be looking for a new AR soon. If they were to adopt something unilaterally I would bet three or even four english pounds that most of europe would follow suit. The US has ignored the NATO standard in the past. Let them do so again if they choose.
LikeLike
“Can your average infantryman even be trained to consistently hit a target with partial cover under combat conditions with a rifle at 3-500m, regardless of caliber?”
Yes. It’s been done in the past (see BEF, 1914) but it would require VAST expenditure in ammunition and time to achieve. The modern way is to introduce technology to achieve an increase in hit probability without a corresponding increase in training time (see US ACR program and the H&K G11)
LikeLike
And just for fun;
LikeLike
DominicJ said, “The three PDW’s to one support fires per section route is a pretty reasonable setup in a lot of situations.”
Insert the obligatory references to Mr. Owen’s papers on the topic.
Click to access Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf
Click to access 200712031747321.pdf
LikeLike
Pete said “Yes. It’s been done in the past (see BEF, 1914) but it would require VAST expenditure in ammunition and time to achieve. The modern way is to introduce technology to achieve an increase in hit probability without a corresponding increase in training time (see US ACR program and the H&K G11)”
The H&K G11 was a true Star Wars rifle. I thought its clever rotating feed mechanism was an amazing piece of engineering.
Thinking allowed I think there would be trouble with using the BEF, well WW1, as a comparison is the use of bolt action weapons vs semi/full automatic…..Um. I going to cogitate on that a bit longer because I can’t articulate what I am thinking.
LikeLike
Another thought, question; what does the average Taliban fighter carry as his long arm?
LikeLike
that never worries me x
LikeLike
Well it should, if as you say “More than 50% of infantry engagements in Afghanistan take place at ranges above 300 meters.” We want what they got…….
LikeLike
ha ha, comments crossing in the night
I was referring to your comment about not wanting to write anything because your couldn’t articulate!!
LikeLike
Would it be feasible to scale down to small arms calibres the howitzer concept of variable propellant charge ammunition? The propellant (using H&K G11/ Dynamit Nobel technology) would be kept separate from the bullets in a clip together two-part magazine and a measured number of propellant blocks would be inserted into the chamber according to the distance or type of target selected.
LikeLike
X, I don’t think we necessarily want what they have.
If engagements are primarily ambushes, where the enemy has the terrain and numeric advantage, they can more effectively employ sniper rifles, MGs and RPGs.
We need to figure out how to counter this, not emulate it, IMHO.
LikeLike
I admit admin to actually being a bit naughty; I was trying to draw you out on the 300m plus figure.
This is surely connected with the Taliban technique of using a HMG to shoot and scoot? This can only be countered with more HMG at platoon level, which isn’t a realistic proposition. As I said the further away the attacker the less likely you to pick them out; once the dust has settled the Taliban would have gone to ground.
Also I know full well what the Taliban carry more often than not. The odd old Enfield 303 (if the ammunition is loaded correctly) and the occasional HK G1 are hardly grounds for a wholesale re-equipping. These two are the only common occurring infantry weapons that the Taliban carry. The AK47 and AK74 carried by the majority suffer similar “problems” to the 5.56mm.
LikeLike
B Smitty said “X, I don’t think we necessarily want what they have.”
See below.
LikeLike
I said “These two are the only common occurring infantry weapons that the Taliban carry.”
I meant to say “These two are the only common occurring infantry weapons that the Taliban carry that can out range the 5.56mm”
LikeLike
I am always a bit suspicious about wonder technology.
Some of the proponents/manufacturers claims are doubtless exagerated, however some combinations of
1)Carbon nano tubes: – (Fibres could have 20 times tensile strength of best available Kevlar)
2)Non newtonian fluids: – Custard that sets to incompresable solid when subject to shock)
3)Kolsterised foils: – (Steel 4 times harder than best available steel armour)
4)Carbon Nano powders: -(Combined with fibres already being tested vastly improves shock absorbtion of soft armour).
Are really going to happen.
When they do even 7,62 AP will struggle against much lighter and more flexible body armour than we are using at the moment.
This is not just about hitting people with aimed shots at 600 metres. Its about killing him stone dead at 300, and as a complete flip side of the coin doing the same to thin taliban who are also it appears shrugging off 5.56.
Can ask some questions of the more experienced on this sight.
As far as hitting people at 6-800 mtres.
With modern simulators etc would it really be that expensive?
If each soldier in the unit could do this, would they not have to lug as many 40mm/GPM /sniper rifles etc and the other favoured long range weapons.
LikeLike
IXION said, “…doing the same to thin taliban who are also it appears shrugging off 5.56.”
Beware anecdote evidence.
LikeLike
The Talaiban are using anything they can get their hands on, including a number of very old but still entirely serviceable Lee-Enfield SMLEs. That said, they have two weapons of choice:
– 7.62 mm x 54R Dragunov Sniper Rifle – a very accurate assault rifle
– 7.62 mm x %$R PKM machine gun – a lightweight belt fed machine gun
These weapons are effective at 1,000+ and should not be confused with the 7.62 mm x 39 AK47 which uses a shorter version of the 7.62 x 54R but is only effective to 300 metres.
LikeLike
Monty,
“Heckler & Koch has just released a brand new lightweight 7.62 MM GPMG, the HK121.”
With reference to the above point, which you made in a much earlier post. I hope I have got the right weapon. Apparently the new design creates a 1.8 kg weight reduction thanks to its shortened barrel, external flutes and titanium receiver. The managing director of Heckler and Koch is quoted as saying: “This is a significant weight reduction and the cost penalty is minimal.” Apparently the UK MOD is seriously considering it.
LikeLike
I’ve purposely waited until pretty late on in this debate before dropping in with my two pence worth. Not to steal ideas or to take sides, but mainly to weigh up the pro’s and cons. Obviously the argument isn’t going to be settled over night, so I thought I’d drop in a bombshell and see what the general consensus was.
Why can’t we have both? Hear me out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11
The South Koreans, bless their cotton socks, have designed a multi-calibre modular weapon in the Daewoo K11. Inasmuch that it is a 5.56 mm assault rifle in the general sense of the term, albeit with an over-barrel 20 mm grenade launcher with an integrated ballistics computer in the sight.
Given that the system clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of having two weapons that are fully integrated, as opposed to merely bolted together like the M16/M203 combination, then it should be possible to have a system that has a Daewoo K11 with a 7.62 mm rifle in place of the 20 mm grenade launcher.
The LAW 80 had a lightweight integrated spotting rifle fitted to it, why can’t we do it (metaphorical question of course) with a 5.56 mm assault rifle?
As an aside, the K11 could be an answer to our 300 m+ problems in Afghanistan. If our troops are having trouble hitting the target, then perhaps we should be looking at the targeting systems and not just the round.
LikeLike
BSMITTY
US Armies own tests showing than thin 3rd world types (as contained in the main post), suffer a lot less serious injury (No yawing), than fat westerners!
Tests conducted after the “Blackhawk down” incident brought about by the first complaints from the troops. Complaints that continue to be published regardles of new bullet types being issued.
Maybe not exactly bible scripture, but not exactly anecdote either.
LikeLike
Monty said “7.62 mm x 54R Dragunov Sniper Rifle – a very accurate assault rifle
– 7.62 mm x %$R PKM machine gun – a lightweight belt fed machine gun”
But these are support weapons. What I am on about is what does the “average” Taliban carries. This is like me inferring that every British soldier carries a L1A1 (he would have to a be a big chap) or a L115A3.
LikeLike
Monty said “7.62 mm x 54R Dragunov Sniper Rifle – a very accurate assault rifle
– 7.62 mm x %$R PKM machine gun – a lightweight belt fed machine gun”
But these are support weapons. What I am on about is what does the “average” Taliban carry. This is like me inferring that every British soldier carries a L1A1 (he would have to be a big chap) or a L115A3.
LikeLike
X
i realise that the Dragunov and PKM are support weapons but they are widely used, very simply because they are so effective at longer ranges. Obviously AK47 and AK74 variants are used widely too. TO be honest, I don’t think we know precise details of the enemy ORBAT.
Mike W,
The HK121 seems to be very good. I suspect that it was developed precisely to meet UK and US needs for a lightweight 7.62 mm machine gun. I’ll know more about this next week, but information released so far seems to suggest that it is a larger version of the H&K MG4, which itself ‘borrows’ a lot of ideas from the FN Minimi and improves on them.
LikeLike
Monty – as far as I am aware the Dragunov is certainly not accurate to 1000m+ – it was the Soviet version of what the Yanks now call a “designated Marksmans rifle” – probably 1 shot 1 kill at 600m, and accurate harassing fire out to 800m perhaps.
Ixion – ref: “As far as hitting people at 6-800 mtres.
With modern simulators etc would it really be that expensive?”
Its not that simple. At up to 30m with a Browning Hi-Power I rival a wild west gun slinger, at anything over 100m with either the old SLR or the SA80 with iron sights, I am completely pants 🙂 Especially if the Annual Personal Weapons test was done straight after Combat Fitness test …. ! So, back to simulators; my unit was a ten minute drive from an RAF base that had a SAT – Small Arms Trainer. This consists of a large back projected screen, and 4 x SA80, with lasers in the barrels and an action that is operated by compressed air. This means that once you have”fired” 30 shots, the bolt stays open and you have to change magazine. It is a truly superb way of practising, and we were lucky to get frequent access (just about every friday night). Using did improve my shooting.
HOWEVER, if you want average infantry type to kill bad guys out past 200m, never mind 500 to 600, then give him a small light weapon and let him hump belts of 7.62 for his machine gunner and / or extra 40mm medium velocity grenades for one of his squad carrying a Milkor MK32 6 round grenade launcher (or maybe a lighter MetalStorm 3 round one).
Unless we are going to get a sudden “paradigm shifting” advance in small arms technology, talk of exotic or intermediate calibers is in my opinion a waste of time.
AA12 with Frag-12 for everyone… !! 🙂
LikeLike
Jed said ” my unit was a ten minute drive from an RAF base that had a SAT – Small Arms Trainer. ”
I take yours was a small unit and the RAF base was a major installation……..
LikeLike
X – ref: “I take yours was a small unit and the RAF base was a major installation”
NO !
My small specalist TA unit was based on a large army base, which is actually home to a Corps. It has on site pistol ranges, and a small exercise area where blanks could be fired.
The RAF base (not an air field) had lost a number of units, was a home for a hodge podge of lodging units, and yet their tiny RAF Regiment contingent had the SAT,
“go figure” as they say on this side of the Atlantic….
LikeLike
There’s also the forthcoming, lighter, M240L version of the MAG 58.
IXION, I’d like to see these definitive studies.
Here’s another article by Mr. Owen,
“True but Irrelevant: Small Arms Performance in Afghanistan”
Click to access owen_RDS_feb2010.pdf
LikeLike
BSMITTY
V busy now (small matter of earning a living) until friday but will check out and post a link)
LikeLike
The point is not to turn an average infantryman into a marksman but to simplify logistics. This is where the Intermediate cartridge makes sense.
The L85/86 will need to be replaced at some point in the not to distant future so that would be the time to consider a new cartridge, wouldn’t it?
The golf bag approach is fine. It represents a perfectly sensible compromise. But if a fireteam/section had to carry only one type of round?
LikeLike
B Smitty
Thanks dude, pretty compelling stuff.
The first RUSI one anyway.
The second shorter RUSI piece I disagreed with. If a soldier says “I cant hit thr enemy at 600m with this weapon”, you cant quote range data telling him that actualy he can…
But the first one, interesting stuff.
As I said, I dont think its my place, or infact anyones place, to dictate equipment load outs for every mission ever from on high.
Is it possible for single general issue rifle to function as both a short barrel carbine chambered in a near pistol calibre and a long barreled marksman varient chambered in 7.72? Along with a few roles in between?
Anyhow
Maybe theres scope for replacing both the 7.62 and 5.56 with an intermediate round?
But even if theres not, 4 bullet types is hardly that obscene, to cover everything from point blank to 1500m.
Operationaly, leave it to individuals, fireteams, sections, squads, troops, companies and battalions to decide what the most appropriate tools are for the task at hand.
If they’re dug in on a hill surrounded by flat land for 500m in all directions, PDW’s will probably be a waste, if they’re patrolling a town, sniper rifles and HMG’s are probably not going to be worth it.
LikeLike
There’s also the human (psychological) element which suggests that maybe you don’t need to give the whole platoon god weapons. Some infantrymen aren’t much more than porters – even in professional armies.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-infantry-small-unit-development.html
I still dislike the idea of a PDW such as MP7 for combat troops. It isn’t even a good idea as secondary weapon.
It is possible to shorten the barrel of a rather light assault rifle and use an appropriate cartridge. This appropriate cartridge would have a propellant that avoids excessive noise and muzzle flash and the bullet can be designed to yaw early and fragment. Additionally, there are ultra-light assault rifles such as the “carbon” series which save additional weight.
The standard cartridge could still be used if necessary (possibly with a simple adjustment of the gas system).
In the end, there’s little difference in weight & clumsiness between such a well-done subcarbine and a PDW.
LikeLike
DominicJ said “to dictate equipment load outs for every mission ever from on high.
Well that’s it really isn’t it? Light infantry like the RM and Para’s train themselves for peak fitness. Then they get handicapped having to carry 56lb Bergen. And in wartime probably have to top that off with a couple of mortar bombs, their own extra ammunition, and perhaps belted ammunition for a support weapon. Yes the Bergen is “dropped” when there is need to move quickly and troops live off what they carry in the fighting order. But to get there they have had to carry themselves and all that weight, often for this type of soldier across inhospitable territory.
(I should say something about bod armour, but won’t.)
LikeLike
Jed said ““go figure” as they say on this side of the Atlantic….”
Thanks that was the perfect answer!!!
Over the last 15 years or so since I have been poking around the issue of defence this sort of occurrence has cropped up on more than one occasion. As my few posts (illogical, garbled, and sometimes daft) here show I am very pro-navy; to me it is a simple question of logic. And people think I am anti-RAF purely because of the carrier issue. Well no and yes. No because I acknowledge the bravery and professional of RAF personnel; they live and work in a structure not of their own making. And yes because of the carrier issue (or should that be air defence of UK and protection of UK interests abroad.) But also because as an organisation compared with the other two their facilities, equipment, “benefits”, personnel levels for equivalent tasks, seem to this humble civilian seem to be better (and on occasion a lot better.)
So I have been “go figuring” for a long time now! 🙂
LikeLike
wrote a massive comment earlier but the nasty ether ate it. however new comments since means it needs re-tweaking. First of all pete, it would not take vast amounts of ammo to train the guys, I was a RMQ 4-5 and regularly took APWT’s after about 2 hours and 100 rounds I had people hitting the target at 300m with iron sights.
Plus as jed stated the SAT system was a fantastic tool, this could display a graph of point of aim before,during and after shot plus pressure of grip in both hands, very under rated peice of kit, and easier to use due to need to book ranges,transport etc therefore able to use on a regular basis instead of once a year,incurring skills fade and allocation was, as jed was a tad strange!
As for weapon allocation the MOD plod use the HK mp7, this has replaced 3 weapon systems, it is 4.6mm so there is your sidearm and carbine. I believe that the section should be a decent calibre (size to be decided by boffins not me). Then use varying barrel lengths so section has options, the kel-tec rfb uses an 18″,24″ and 32″ barrel so one rifle however your section can have a sharpshooter with appropriate sighting. obviously section weapons, be it drum mag or belt fed in the same calibre leaving the big boys in 12.7mm or suitable size so that’s everything from pistol to man stopper in 3 sizes.
LikeLike
NO need to book ranges, transport, rations etc I meant to say!!!
LikeLike
Sven
That some soldiers are porters not fighters is the main arguement in favour of a PDW, if he cant fight effectivly, he might as well stop trying and carry for someone who can, use the weight saved for 40mm HE Grenades or machine gun ammunition.
A few speculative questions
Does Yaw matter much with multiple hits?
Is there a reasonable arguement that a yawing hit is worth 2 none yawing hits?
So 3 none yawing beat 1 yawing?
And therefore, does the much increased ammunition capacity, both in the weapon and on the soldier, compensate for this over the distances they will be used at?
Could we chamber a PDW sized weapon in 5.56?
Is our ban on deforming bullets sensible anymore?
It amuses me that its illegal to shoot most animals with none fragmenting rounds, on animal cruelty grounds, but its illegal to use fragmenting rounds on people, on human cruelty grounds.
Yet we still issue shotguns, which Imperial Germany railed against in the First World War.
LikeLike
“I was a RMQ 4-5 and regularly took APWT’s after about 2 hours and 100 rounds I had people hitting the target at 300m with iron sights.”
But range skills arent combat skills.
Most soldiers could fire three rounds a minute with a musket after a days instruction on the parade ground.
Put them on the battlefield and they would struggle to fire 1 round a minute.
Thats what a lot of the complaints about the 5.56 seem to relate to (from my uniformed view).
Hitting targets 600m away is possible, but not when your under fire from all sides trying to return fire from behind a foot high mud wall and fisrt aid your mate who’s had his leg blown off by an IED.
Not wanting to dictate from on high, but 5 PDW/Carbine, a 40mm three round grenade launcher, a GPMG and a DMW would give a section 3 ammunition types (5.56/7.62/40) and a reasonable capability across a multitude of ranges.
LikeLike
“Not wanting to dictate from on high, but 5 PDW/Carbine, a 40mm three round grenade launcher, a GPMG and a DMW would give a section 3 ammunition types (5.56/7.62/40) and a reasonable capability across a multitude of ranges.”
PDW’s are pointless. As the last ditch weapon for the crew of a disabled tank or downed helicopter they may be relevent. As an infantry weapon, no. The correct round was designed post war as was the correct gun. A 7mm, bullpup paired with an LMG in the same calibre. OK, a modern force would add grenade launchers to the mix but the basic infantry round would be a 7mm intermediate cartridge with a heavy enough bullet to be effective at 500m plus whilst light enough to allow automatic fire at close range. Dedicated grenadiers are less useful if everyone in the section has one under their rifle.
I know some people are vehemently opposed to bullpup weapons but they have some clear advantages (length, obviously, but also balance when equipped with any form of underbarrel weapon) and the disadvantages are avoidable with good design.
LikeLike
Peter
No problem with bullpups.
That said, the main arguement against intermediate calibres seems to rest on the theory that not all soldiers are capable.
Even with a DMW they will not be much use for anything but suppressive fire.
If we accept that, giving them a 7.62 over a 5.56 makes no difference, because its the soldier not the weapon thats at fault.
If we cant replace the soldier, he will be better utilised carrying ammunition for those who are more more capable, and are armed with grenade launchers, machine guns and long range rifles.
If we accept that, his weapon should be as light as possible and his ammunition should be as light as possible, whilst still allowing him to protect himself and allowing him to carry more ammunition for the more capable soldiers.
That of course, relies on the problem being the soldier not the weapon.
LikeLike
Just a short ans banal comment, is it me or does the M32 GL in W Owens article on UK section weight of fire look amazingly like an ARWEN done right? Did Police Ordnance sell the rights or something?
LikeLike
Just to move from fantasy fleets to fantasy weapons, with the caveat that I have carried everything from SLR, through SMG to SA80 with live ammo, but never fired a shot in anger, and certainly never patrolled Sangin in 40 C plus……
Google for Magpul PDR – a concept for a 5.56mm sub-carbine that weights less than an FN P90 (1.8Kg). It was demo’d as a mockup at Shotshow 2008 – video is on YouTube, and apparently they continue to quietly work on it. Now this is the company that produced the multi-calibre carbine previously known as the Masada, now in production by Remington as the “Adaptive Combat Rifle” (as seen in the big gun fight at the beginning of the new Hawaii-five O).
It’s short, light and apparently accurate enough out to 200m, although you might need a different 5.56mm bullet optimized for lethality at that range. With Polymer magazines this thing could actually provide the same weight savings ascribed to carrying a P90 in the RUSI paper – 2.7Kg less than an L85A2 with the same ammo load. OK so you dont get all the extra rounds you get with the P90, but you don’t have to introduce a new calibre either.
If you want to move slightly into the realms of Ripley and the Colonial Marines, you could attach a MetalStorm MAUL, 5 round 12 shot gun above on the top of the PDR’s receiver, and it would still weight less than a loaded P90 ! As MetalStorm are apparently working on making a version of the Frag-12 HE grenade round to work with their electronic firing mechanism, you could have 30 rounds of 5.56 and 5 rounds of HE (with alleged fatal radius of 6 to 9 feet) – I’ll take one.
Oh, but of course, non of this is accurate beyond 200m, not that personally I ever hit anything beyond 200m’s any way, but of course non of the Audey Murphey / “Enemy at the Gate sniper” wannabe’s will take this seriously….. 🙂
LikeLike
2.7 kg is about the weight of a 40mm UGL and 6 x 40mm grenades.
LikeLike
Smitty – it seems to be a bit of a “magic number” according to one of the RUSI papers, 2.7Kg is roughly:
200 round belt of 5.56mm
100 round belt of 7.62mm
11 40mm Grenades
And slightly more than the L72A4 Light Anti-Structures Missile (LASM) – the modern version of the M72 66mm LAW.
I presume that as the MetalStorm UGL packs in 3 40mm grenades it weighs a bit more than the current H&K UGL, but obviously with a stock and various sights etc, it would still weight considerably less than the M32 (???)
LikeLike
I can’t see a super adjustable rifle fitting in with the UK MoD’s minimum-buy-fitted-for-but-not-with culture. The only reason why they would buy it would be because it would an extra layout of complication……
Pistols are weapons of last resort. I remember reading a study once that compared how quickly personnel lost the ability to fire a pistol over against a rifle. The test subjects ability decayed with the former very rapidly. While with the latter the test subjects maintained an average of 90% ability. See as the MoD Plod are patrolling overtly and therefore have no need to hide the weapon the carbine makes an ideal choice.
Jed said “as seen in the big gun fight at the beginning of the new Hawaii-five O”
Dude we don’t get the new Five-0 in the UK until October; thanks for the spoiler….. 🙂
You are right about the Magpul, C’est magnifique
LikeLike
Sven,
The PDW concept has taken a bit of a battering since negative feedback about 5.56 mm ammunition became prevalent. If 5.56 mm ammunition has lethality issues, then 4.6 mm PDW ammunition is even worse. The advent of new body armour further blunts its effectiveness. Such weapons were fine in theory and has to be said that after the G11 rifle firing caseless ammunition bankrupted H&K, the MP7 firing the 4.6 mm round also did the same. It has not really been a success.
H&K also unveiled a few weeks ago the HK416c which is a PDW version of the standard 416 carbine. 5.56 mm could well become a PDW ammunition instead of a mainstream standard calibre. If this were the case, it might be possible to shorten the cartridge. It’s certainly a case of watch this space.
Another factor that merits further consideration is optical combat gun sights. With SA80, shooting standards immediately improved after its adoption because of SUSAT. The latest ACOG x4 scopes are even better. The average soldier really can quite easily engage and hit targets at 300 metres. With the ACOG x6 scope fitted the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifles, soldiers are successfully engaging single enemy combatants at ranges above 600 metres. This represents a quantum leap in capabilities versus what we could achieve only 10 years ago. When you have an entire section engaging a target at 1.000 metres, it is entirely possible to fix an enemy in place while artillery or indirect fire is brought to bear. So having ammunition that is effective at long range is extremely important.
The 6.5 mm Grendel is an existing cartridge that offers long range lethality and that fits in existing AR-15 weapons requiring a new upper and barrel only. The increase in felt recoil is marginal. Magazines can hold 25 rounds instead of 30 with a minor increase in weight.
LikeLike
X – sorry matey, I only tuned in for Grace Park, she is Canadian you know…. 🙂
Actually it’s not bad, the rest of the show that is, especially if you remember watching the originals because your grandma had a thing for Steve McGarret !
LikeLike
Monty
I believe the whole point of the PDW small calibers bet it the HK or FN was that they be “armour piercing” – so they could penetrate the NATO standard CRISAT body armour target at a given distance. As someone has already noted in an earlier comment, wrapping the target in body armour just makes our problems worse… !
So even if the skinny, sharp, AP round pierces the body armour, will it do enough damage to the bad guy ?
Well based on hours of research watching Stargate, my vote is for the FN P90, because at least at with SG1 and at short range it appears to have no problem penetrating Jaffa body armour, which is supposed to be the product of advanced technology !
Mind you, I note the StarGate command personnel involved in StarGate Universe appear to have jumped whole sale to the H&K G36 ! 🙂
LikeLike
Thats some hard core nerding right there
LikeLike
Monty, you tell me no news about PDW and 5.56…
I am owner of the domain http://www.personaldefenceweapons.com (btw, the site will go offline in a few weeks because I don’t want to spend on it any more).
LikeLike
I do not like 5.56mm, that is all.
LikeLike
Here’s a counter anecdote in favor of the 5.56mm,
“When a five-man Special Forces team looking for Scuds in Iraq ran into a reinforced Iraqi infantry company, the future looked grim for the Americans. Facing overwhelming odds, it was quickly decided that three men armed with sniper rifles would cover a hasty retreat back to the LZ. With these odds death–or worse–seemed certain.
Yet the ensuing firefight did not go as the Iraqis had planned. Rather than being overwhelmed, the three Americans instead put down a hail of highly accurate rifle fire. Advancing against this murderous wall, entire sections of Iraqi infantry were simply cut down. Screaming and rattling away with their Kalashnikovs on full auto, they were knocked from their feet by carefully aimed shots. When staggering losses finally broke their spirit, the surviving Iraqis either threw down their weapons or simply ran away. Scattered about lay the bodies of 167 of their comrades. The Iraqi dead lay in mute testimony to the Americans’ tenacity and marksmanship skill.
With the criticism of poor terminal performance leveled by many on the 5.56×45, you would think those 167 Iraqis were cut down by 7.62mm M14s. Such was not the case. They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load, the Mk 262 has performed quite well in actual combat.”
http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/black-hills-mk-262-mod-1
Maybe we just need better rounds and some DMRs with good optics instead of a completely new, heavier round, rifle and logistics train.
LikeLike
“They fell to 5.56 Mk 12 sniper rifles”
With a nice long barrel, I assume, certainly not a carbine or PDW.
“firing 77-grain Mk 262 Open Tip Match ammunition. Developed to offer increased accuracy, range and improved terminal performance over the standard 62-grain M855 load”
Which is totally unacceptable to most NATO armies due to the constraints of the Hague Convention. As long as such legal conventions are in force an open tip bullet won’t be adopted by the UK so the only option is a bigger bullet.
LikeLike
B.Smitty,
I think it helped a great deal the three guys being sniper trained. I believe the difference of using a 77 grain load over the standard 62 grain on its own would be very little to the average squaddie. But I agree with your comment about better optics, and a better round would compliment this. Whether it would solve the problem completely, unfortunately I don’t think so.
I think in the longer term we will have to look at a better suited intermediate round. While we are in Afghanistan it would be an ideal opportunity to test one. The M4 is commercially available in 6.8 mm SPC, where upper receivers can be simply exchanged. The magazine can use the same shell but capacity is reduced to 26. Perhaps a 6.8mm L85 upper receiver could be converted and dropped straight onto the TMH, purely for testing. Any takers?
LikeLike
BSmitty,
I can only endorse Richard and peter’s observations about the 5.56 mm Mk 262 OTM bullet. As I mention in my main piece, the legality of the US Army’s improved 5.56 mm M855A1 round and the USMC’s Mk 318 SOST round is questionable. What I would add is that all improved 5.56 mm still suffer from a lack of effective range. Mk 262 is also reported to cause increased barrel wear – not that soldiers caught in a firefight would particularly worry about this.
The US Army and the UK MoD have spent millions improving 5.56 mm ammunition. Britain even uses a decreased loading for the L2A2 cartridge so that the L85A2 / A3 cycles properly. Even if lethality concerns have been addressed at ranges to 300 metres, this still isn’t good enough. The laws of physics mean that you cannot prevent an bullet of this diameter and mass from losing energy en route to a target.
LikeLike
Seeing as we’re playing Fantasy Firearms, my vote goes to the Czech Brno CZ S 805. It’s being developed for 5.56, 7.62X45 and Rem 6.8, so conversion to 6.5 Grendel shouldn’t be an issue. As to other reasons, well I just lie the idea of BREN guns in the army again 🙂
LikeLike
Jed said “sorry matey, I only tuned in for Grace Park, she is Canadian you know…. :-)”
All attractive “American” actresses are Canadians. If I were Canadian PM Cobie Smulders would be on the stamps.,,,
Back to the business in hand. I know we have moved past SA80 good, bad, or indifferent. But a thought struck me that considering the army’s primary skill is shooting people it was a poor effort.
LikeLike
I see your point WRT the Hague Convention issues. However this rule seemed archaic even when it was adopted. Recall it’s also the convention that prohibited “Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons”. Maybe it’s time to take the kid gloves off.
The Mk 12 has proven effective out to 5-600m with the right training, rounds and optics. Yes, it has an 18″ barrel.
I’m in favor of keeping and improving upon the 5.56mm platform. This includes fielding improved optics and rounds and improving training. I also like the squad designated marksman concept and establishing a limited arms room concept whereby a number of longer-ranged weapons are available to units to be used as needed.
This approach will be far less expensive than a wholesale change to a new round along with providing large numbers of high powered optics and sufficient training to allow everyone to shoot at 600+m.
The money (and carried weight) instead should be spent on better communications, electronics and sensors.
LikeLike
Monty said: “Even if lethality concerns have been addressed at ranges to 300 metres, this still isn’t good enough.”
Aaaaarghhh – YES it is, because your average squaddie even with the 20 inch barrel of the SA80 / L85A2, with SUSAT or later optics is rarely going to hit anybody at that range. Especially if he is worn out be patrolling in 40 degs C temp’s, wearing full Osprey body armour, carrying sh1t loads of other gear, and is stressed because someone is pinging PKM mg rounds off his hard cover (if he has any).
He is best of devoting some of his load to 7.62mm for the squad MG, or 40mm MEDIUM velocity grenades which can reach out to 800m. While the HE and MG keep the bad guys heads down, his oppo with the L129 ‘designated marksman rifle’ with probably better than average shooting skills which got him the role, and plenty of training, picks of bad guys who show themselves.
Equipping every infantryman with a “full battle rifle” with an intermediate round (jack of all trades and master of non), even if we could afford it, is just not tactically necessary IMHO (and all based on the usual caveat that I have only been shot at once, and never been in a full scale firefight).
LikeLike
Gents,
I was under the impression that the Hague convention only comes into effect if both you and your opponent are signatories, have i missed something?
@ B.Smitty, i completely agree. From some half remembered history lessons i seem to remember that the Germans wanted the bit about open tipped bullets in to piss of the Brits! They even went as far as to court martial some captured British officers at the beginning of WW1 because they were armed with Webleys chambered in .455 open tipped…..
It is no longer illegal to sell cannon balls to the french! Perhaps we should move on re open tipped rounds!!!
LikeLike
AndyJS said “It is no longer illegal to sell cannon balls to the french! Perhaps we should move on re open tipped rounds!!!”
I mentioned that a few zillion comments ago (re USMC’s new round,) but everybody seems more interested in “range” at the moment. I suppose we are just being thorough…….. 🙂
LikeLike
X,
Ahhh, no worries, cheers.
Andy.
LikeLike
Jed, from a morale point of view I think your idea falls down. Telling half your section that they’re a bunch of bifs fit only to carry ammo for the Mighty War Gods manning the effective weapons may not go down too well. . .
LikeLike
I think we are letting the Hague Convention distract us from the core issues here. The reason why the US has resorted to open tip bullets which fragment easily is because 5.56 mm lethality was a genuine issue. No one is saying that 5.56 mm doesn’t kill. It does. But in certain situations any calibre, including 7.62 mm, can fail to transfer lethal energy into a target. But the inescapable fact of ballistic science is that a larger projectile with greater energy behind it is more likely to incapacitate more of the time. 5.56 mm is an innovative concept, the question is whether the element of uncertainty it introduces is acceptable.
I violently disagree with Jed. Since the advent of SUSAT, ACOG and other single point optical sights, the average soldier CAN shoot very effectively at 300 metres. With the L129A1, soldiers who are no more than good shots are achieving kills at 800 metres. Compare APWT scores from 1980 with the L1A1 SLR to 2000 with the L85A1, and you will see a much higher percentage of top scores.
When we adopted SA80, we lost the capability to shoot as a section or platoon at area targets at 600 metres. Afghanistan clearly shows we still need it.
Having used both 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm calibres, 5.56 mm weapons and ammo are undoubtedly easier to carry and shoot; but when it comes to putting the bad guys down, 7.62 mm simply gets the job done at any range. Perhaps this explains why the HK417 has become so popular with the SAS.
LikeLike
@ Andy
With all these learned people making long posts things get lost!
But you right bullet design is key; my interest in this goes way back to an 80s Guns&Ammo ran an article on police carry rounds. This was back just before all the 10mm rounds became available. Back the the best “one stop round” (a phrase that is controversial) was .357mag 125JHP clocking out at 1400fps (if memory serves) with a percentage of about 92%. The mighty .44mag only managed a one stop 72% with a lead hollow point. Counter intuitive proof that perhaps you can have to much gun. But if you look at military FMJ you can believe that rounds do pass through bodies without much effect. Again that would suggest the tumbling .223 might be a man stopper or not. All I know for sure it is all very complicated, especially for me as I am bear with very little brain,
(I remember one G&A article about a wildcat cartridge for shooting coyotes used in Texas. The calibre was something like 4mm and it sat atop a cartridge that looked something akin to .50Browning (probably not but you get the picture.) Even with quick browning powders it took a long time between trigger pull and bang; it was hope that the coyote over a mile away would stand still long enough. This round supposedly a muzzle velocity over 4000fps. Apparently if every thing went well for the man there wasn’t much left of the poor coyote.)
LikeLike
I wonder if it’s worth noting that the 7.62 x 51mm “full power” cartridge is a reduced size cartridge itself, compared to the 7.62 x 63mm that preceded it in US service.
All nations looked to reduce the size of their cartridges in the wake of the last industrialised war. The US army had previously investigated a system that allowed a soldier to carry both a full-power rifle in 30.06 and also a 30-18 submachinegun. Tests indicated that while troops equipped with the Pedersen device registered more hits on exposed targets, the men in trenches around the butts were often not aware that they were under fire, while the full-power rounds kept them pinned under cover (Hatcher’s Notebook, Maj. Gen. J Hatcher)
It may be this, or sheer inertia, that caused the US military to favour less of a step back from their existing cartridge than the other major powers of the time. Russia went from 7.62x54R to 7.62×39, Germany were going from 7.92×57 to 7.92×33. The UK were unusual in that they not only reduced the size of case but also the calibre, going from 7.7x56R to 7×43. In comparison, the US shift from 7.62×63 to 7.62×51 is slight and arguably not far enough. In this sense they differ from the other nations, where the old rifle round was retained for long range rifle and machinegun work, while the US switched wholesale to the new cartridge for everything. The UK probably would have as well (to 7×43) as the 7.7x56R was by then an ageing design and ill-suited to automatic weapons (although the same could be said for the 7.62x54R, which is still going strong, well over a century after its introduction). The 5.56×45 is going too far as opposed to not far enough.
There would probably have been a significant case to combine the British 7×43 for regular infantry use with the US 7.62×63 as a long range rifle/machinegun round.
LikeLike
@ Fusilier
Optical sights are always better than iron sights. But what do you think of red dot sights like the US Army’s Aimpoint CompM2?
LikeLike
Pete Arundel said, “Jed, from a morale point of view I think your idea falls down. Telling half your section that they’re a bunch of bifs fit only to carry ammo for the Mighty War Gods manning the effective weapons may not go down too well. . .”
I don’t see it that way. It’s the whole reason members of the section are equipped with different weapons in the first place. Each has a role to play. Not all combat is at 600+m.
I go back to what I said earlier, “We have to ask ourselves what will give the greatest improvement in mission effectiveness for a given change in a soldier’s carried weight, cost and logistics.”
Is a marginally more effective intermediate round (and all of the rest needed to make “600m+ from an infantry rifle” realistic) really the best way to do this?
LikeLike
Fusilier said: “I violently disagree with Jed. Since the advent of SUSAT, ACOG and other single point optical sights, the average soldier CAN shoot very effectively at 300 metres. With the L129A1, soldiers who are no more than good shots are achieving kills at 800 metres. Compare APWT scores from 1980 with the L1A1 SLR to 2000 with the L85A1, and you will see a much higher percentage of top scores.”
I don’t violently disagree with that at all, but my point is whatever APWT scores say, shooting on the range is not combat. My APWT range experiences with the SA80 go from having someone stood over me with binoculars calling each fall of shot to try and make me pass / a better shot, to having to do it straight after Combat Fitness test, with some additional push ups between each stand ! Strangely enough, scores were better on the first example 🙂
Of course L129A is effective for an average shooter. Modern weapons if bench clamp mounted will shoot groups smaller than one minute of arc (MOA)every time, even at 800. The human aimer / firer is then the main accuracy factor. I even happily admit that Soviet / German snipers in the great urban battles of WWII could make shots at 600m plus with iron sites.
Non of which really addresses my point. Small arms have their uses, section weapons have theirs. Just because we are currently fighting an action that has some long range fire fights does not change the nature of infantry warfare in its entirety.
LikeLike
“Is a marginally more effective intermediate round (and all of the rest needed to make “600m+ from an infantry rifle” realistic) really the best way to do this?”
I don’t believe it would be ‘marginally’ more effective.
Leaving aside the lethality of 5.56, one of it’s major problems is that it doesn’t supress like a larger round. The opposition doesn’t notice a miss unless it’s very close – anyone who has spent time in the butts will have noticed the difference between 7.62 and 5.56 rounds whizzing past them. A fairly heavy 7mm bullet of good ballistic shape would supress, be less upset by crosswinds and penetrate cover better than 5.56 whilst still allowing a rifle to be designed around it that would be small enough and light enough not to be a burden in close combat.
I’m afraid I shall now have to bring up the EM-2 because, realistically, it’s the only example of a genuine, intermediate cartridge assault rifle that we have.
I have noticed that the L129A1 uses a 20″ barrel. In comparison, the EM-2 had a 24″ barrel. In an effort to make the L129A1 handy enough to be carried our new ‘sharpshooter’ rifle has a shorter barrel than an SLR! A section all equiped with EM-2 (or modern equivalents) makes the idea of the L129A1 superfluous.
EM-2: 7.7lbs, 35″ OAL, 24″ barrel.
L129A1: 11lbs, 37″ OAL, 20″ barrel.
Let’s face facts, the US f**ked up the whole intermediate cartridge thing and dragged NATO along with them – twice. There is the possibility to make good those mistakes. It won’t happen but what the hell . ..
LikeLike
Jed said “after Combat Fitness test, with some additional push ups between each stand ! Strangely enough, scores were better on the first example :-)”
But as we all know good shooting is down to good breath control. As you had probably busted a lung and therefore were dead and not breathing your shooting was bound to be better. Simples…
Jed said “Of course L129A is effective for an average shooter. Modern weapons if bench clamp mounted will shoot groups smaller than one minute of arc (MOA)every time, even at 800.”
I said this earlier on, but it is worth repeating as it is a fact that gets forgotten.
Jed said “Just because we are currently fighting an action that has some long range fire fights does not change the nature of infantry warfare in its entirety.”
This is the issue. In earlier posts I have tried to draw out what exactly is the nature of combat in A-stan. The Taliban like to use HMG to shoot and scoot. And if they do engage with AK47 or AK74 to be effective they will be engaging within the SA80’s performance envelope. Tackling HMG is a job for support weapons. What I am trying to pin down in my rather addled mind is what is driving this need for the large round? Do we want every body in the infantry platoon going after the Taliban HMG? No that is silly. Or could it be the Taliban are just loosing off rounds in the general direction of their enemy? Even after leaving its effective range a bullet is still travelling at a good speed. There will be the odd whistling/bee sound (and behind that the actual report from cartridge.)
LikeLike
x,
Thanks, must admit, my head is still spinning from all the background reading required to make the post and the comments make sense!
My knowledge of firearms and ammunition is limited to occasional deer stalking and a bit of pest control.
“Apparently if every thing went well for the man there wasn’t much left of the poor coyote”- good use of understatement!
Andy.
LikeLike
Time to fess up! I cannot find a copy of US Army tests into effectiveness of 5.56. Only reports that tests were done on various credible contributors/websites, and that they showed that 5.56 can be variable in effectiveness with some evidence to show that againt thin people. It could under certain cercs cause wounds which were not immediatly or even medium term incapacitating.
In other words it’s performance is erratic. Is it any more erratic than any other round? Once got drunk with New york cop who was dismissive of bigger is better types. He recounted a case of a suspect shot at close range with 6 12 bore slugs who still had to be restrained by officers. And they use those on bears!
We are getting into Angels dancing on pinhead territory here. However the intermediate calibre exponants must have the edge on the logisitcs argument.
And I repeat and expand my Questions: –
If troops on the ground want 7.62
If reports of Taliban “Ignoring 5.56” at longer ranges are true.
If the type of combat in Afghan favours longer ranges.
If Modern weapons like Kaltec are available that are much lighter and shorter than SLR etc.
If troops have 7.62 would they have to really carry any more? As the argument seems to be lets give them 5.56 so they can cary 7.62 for the GPM as well.
It seems possible at leaast thay could be trained to fire acuratly to 600m, (After all some soldiers clearly are). Anyway are we not talking about suppresive fire so is accuracy at 100Om important.
Whats the difference between being shot at by 1 GPM As opposed to 8 auto / semi auto rifles. GPM can only shoot in one directions at the time.
Why not give them 7.62 and reduce the other loads?
(Seem to remember reading that in the 60’s and 70’s the German army wern’t big on section level machine guns).
7.62 is not a magic round, it was after all a production compromise just after the war. But round like grendal (which appear to have been the subject of some serious ballistic work), do seem to have possibleties
LikeLike
IXION said
“If reports of Taliban “Ignoring 5.56″ at longer ranges are true.
If the type of combat in Afghan favours longer ranges.”
From what I gather the Taliban are more, um, fool hardy. I think it is cultural.
It is these longer ranges I don’t understand, well I am having trouble picturing. In the “Green Zone” and in the farming areas (around those mud block compounds) ranges appear as limited as say similar rural territory in Europe. Are these “longer ranges” then out in the mountains; where I understand the Taliban can melt into the scenery. If so what weapon(s) are they using? All very confusing.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, both 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm SPC rounds weigh around 28-30% more than 5.56mm.
So for a soldier carrying 6 magazines plus 1 in the rifle (210 rnds), that’s an extra 1.8 lbs.
Not so bad you say?
Well what about the poor SAW gunner carrying up to 800 rnds? That’s an extra 6.7 lbs on an already overloaded soldier.
Of course they can just carry less, but fewer rounds means they can’t stay in the fight as long.
Plus, a 6x ACOG weighs 1.7 lbs more than the 4x.
LikeLike
Bit of a left field question, because this is all well over my head now.
Is the job of an infantry man/fireteam/section to kill other infantry men/fireteams/sections?
I dont think it is.
I was going to expand, but I think others can do it better
LikeLike
““If reports of Taliban “Ignoring 5.56″ at longer ranges are true.
From what I gather the Taliban are more, um, fool hardy. I think it is cultural.”
I think its more they’re usualy off their rockers on opium.
Being Eviserated is ignorable if your drugged up enough, until blood loss knocks them out.
LikeLike
Another question to ask perhaps is if the balloon had gone up in Europe during the Cold War would the 5.56mm cut the mustard? This all very interesting…….
LikeLike
Let’s face it, that this debate is taking place demonstrates that there are questions being asked about the effectiveness of the 5.56 round.
The intermediate round is a trade-off as is a combination of calibres.
The key driver is logistics. If a single round type can be carried across a section then that is a clear advantage.
But the effectiveness of the intermediate round has to be proved also.
If say, the 6.5 Grendel round, was close enough to 7.62 in performance then, potentially, an assault rifle, a longer barrel version for DMR and an LMG could all be fielded with the same round.
Accepting that not all infantrymen are equal in marksmanship it’ s hard to see what would be lost.
LikeLike
Jason’s said, “If say, the 6.5 Grendel round, was close enough to 7.62 in performance then, potentially, an assault rifle, a longer barrel version for DMR and an LMG could all be fielded with the same round.
Accepting that not all infantrymen are equal in marksmanship it’ s hard to see what would be lost.”
1) It will cost a lot to replace 5.56mm with an intermediate caliber.
2) Given the same number of rounds, it will greatly increase the basic load of the SAW gunner and impact the load of every other soldier. People say, “well just cut weight elsewhere.” Where? Drop body armor? Carry less water? Where do you come up with 6.7 lbs?
3) (IMHO) There are more cost-effective ways to increase mission effectiveness. I’m still skeptical that just moving to an intermediate caliber will impact mission effectiveness at all. Maybe a few more Taliban will be plinked at long range. Will that really turn the tide of a battle? Allow missions to be performed that otherwise wouldn’t have? Maybe it will just reduce foot-mobility of sections and/or require more resupply and soldiers still won’t be able to regularly hit at 600m. Plus they really only need to in this theater. Not much 600m+ plinking in Iraq. Probably not much in most other prospective conflict zones either.
As an aside, I have read rumors that the 6.5mm Grendel isn’t an ideal candidate for belt-feeding due to its case design. Anyone else hear this?
LikeLike
Interesting and connected story on Aviation Weeks, Ares blog, apologies for the long link:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a351a6cc6-3aea-45df-afef-2630eb92747f
LikeLike
Jasons
But will a 6.5 grendal be effective in a GPMG?
As effective as a 7.72?
Whats more important, the GPMG or the three IW?
LikeLike
Um. Then there is a historical perspective in that in way back in the days of musket through the era of Martini even down to WW1 that infantry fire was about massed fire not aimed fire. Just saying.
And a larger calibre doesn’t always mean more kinetic energy being delivered onto the target. For example .408 Cheytac has more thump downrange than .50 Browning.
In November we shall after club together and buy the last remaining soldier in the Army one of everything so he can choose the right weapon for the job at hand. Of course he will have to practice saying “BANG” in various volumes to reflect the weapon in use…….
LikeLike
There are a few factual errors in the article. The M855A1 is not open tipped. It has a steel nose cone. It can break in half but probably won’t truly fragment. The Mk318 round may or may not fragment. No independent testing has been published to show what it actually does.
The arguments in favor of larger calibers are flawed. Infantrymen are unlikely to hit enemies beyond 400 meters no matter what cartridge they use. This has been shown in every war since 1900. So choosing a cartridge based on its performance beyond 500m is foolish.
While soldiers may prefer to have more “stopping power”, the truth is that stopping power does not win gun battles. Firepower wins gun battles. Sacrificing the superior firepower of the 5.56mm to increase stopping power is militarily unsound.
LikeLike
Dwane,
Given the recent advances in optics, laser range-finding, ballistic computers and technological miniaturisation, gives us a distinct and significant advantage in accuracy over our forebears. This gives us a greater choice of capability and range. If a current conflict is increasingly fought at greater ranges than our weapon and ammunition choice should reflect this. Therefore, I wouldn’t call choosing as 500 m plus cartridge choice foolish and arguments in favour of larger calibres flawed.
Re: your comment, “Firepower wins gun battles,” I would add, “but not if you’re using 5.56 mm at 500 metres.”
Personally, flawed though it may be, I would hang on to 7.62 mm for the likes of the GPMG, and still go for a 6.8 mm intermediate round for an infantry rifle.
LikeLike
X
To a point, thats true, but there were very few men with Baker Rifles who wanted to swap them for Brown Bess Muskets.
RS
But Afghanistan is not forever.
Should we completly rearm the British army based on engagements at 500m instead of 200m?
At most, Afghanistan has 5 years left in it, probably less.
Could there be a better definition of preparing for the last war?
LikeLike
DominicJ said “To a point, thats true, but there were very few men with Baker Rifles who wanted to swap them for Brown Bess Muskets.”
Yes. I was just thinking allowed through my typing again. Unlike ThinkDefence I don’t have to check my facts; what I type doesn’t always reflect what I think or know. Sometimes I write to draw ideas or the narrative on. And I don’t really do this off the cuff stuff very well; I prefer to write nice properly structured 5000 words essays with lots of referencing.
LikeLike
@ Richard
Dwane is saying it is weight of fire not the accuracy that wins fire fights. And this is what I have said earlier on in that modern infantry fire is about suppression; that is keeping heads down. When a section or multiple starts firing the noise is horrendous and then the cartridge may be running out of steam after 300m it still is travelling at speed. At 500m 5.56 bullets will still be thudding into the ground and ricocheting off stuff. Believe me you wouldn’t stand there and say “Don’t panic chaps they are more than 300m away we are safe!” you will be diving for cover. (Saying that if “they” had opened up at ranges much in excess of 300m it wouldn’t say much for “their” fire discipline…..) Air power people speak of the physical effects of the loudness, vibrations, effect and this is the sort of scenario I am on about.
Yes we may not be in Afghanistan much longer. But as I have mentioned in several of my comments now the terrain in Afghanistan especially in the farming areas don’t seem much different to rural areas in Europe. And I have always tried to question if the Taliban mostly carry weapons with a similar performance to 5.56mm why do we need a bigger round? And I have always speculated about Afghan shoot and scoot with HMG, But it seems this discussion is only concerned about what “we” carry and not terrain or what the enemy are doing.
(Richard I started off talking to you and then opened up a bit. The latter bits aren’t directed at you or anybody in particular. I am like everybody else trying to gain an understanding.)
LikeLike
@Dwane
Thank you for your comments. I did not state that the M855A1 was an illegal round; I said its legality was questionable. The steel tip of the M855A1 protrudes through the copper jacket. Without a full metal jacket (FMJ), it could be categorised as an open tip round if someone decided to challenge it. This is not my view, but that expressed by UK personnel responsible for developing the new British 5.56 mm round. The Mk 318 SOST MOD 0 is definitely an open tip round. Concerns about legality is why signatories of the 1899 Hague Convention are unlikely to adopt either US round. I think this situation is absurd, but there it is.
As an ex-infantry platoon commander, who has used both 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm ammunition. I don’t believe that large calibre arguments are flawed. In Afghanistan, soldiers are regularly and successfully engaging insurgents at 800 metres with the L129A1 Sharpshooter rifle and GPMG. As many people have pointed out, modern optical combat gun sights are a game changer because they truly enable ordinary soldiers to hit targets at ranges well above 500 metres.
As things stand, feedback suggests that existing 5.56 mm ammunition is not performing as advertised. It isn’t just lack of range, there are four concerns (see main article) including the thorny issue of erratic lethality even at ranges under 100 metres.
While I can personally attest to the effectiveness of 7.62 mm ammunition, the penalty is weight and recoil. For this reason, I fully buy-into the small calibre concept: the more bullets you have, the greater the chance of hitting a target. BUT HOW SMALL DO YOU GO, THAT IS THE QUESTION? Evidence seems to suggest that 5.56 mm is simply too small to do the job. (In several US states, it is illegal to shoot game over 40Kg with 5.56 mm ammunition.)
If the length and mass of a 5.56 mm round were increased to improve ballistic efficiency, then perhaps it would be able to carry its energy beyond 500 metres. The problem is that a longer bullet in a longer cartridge would not fit existing weapon actions and would weigh more. So, instead of improving 5.56 mm, why not simply move up a notch in a calibre, to significantly reduce uncertainty, and give infantry units increased flexibility across all engagement types and ranges?
The extra weight of any new intermediate calibre cartridges is likely to be taken up by the increased mass of the bullet, not the cartridge. Many ballistic experts recommend a bullet of 8 grams versus 4 grams (the 7.62 mm bullet weighs 9.5-10.0 grams).
In the final analysis, none of us knows the answer to this debate. What is criminal is to soldier on with a flawed solution without testing something different.
LikeLike
Monty,
“In the final analysis, none of us knows the answer to this debate. What is criminal is to soldier on with a flawed solution without testing something different.”
Here, here,
If now isn’t the time to test some alternatives in Afghanistan, then when is?
LikeLike
” At 500m 5.56 bullets will still be thudding into the ground and ricocheting off stuff. Believe me you wouldn’t stand there and say “Don’t panic chaps they are more than 300m away we are safe!” you will be diving for cover”
X, the anecdotal evidence is that this is exactly the problem. The enemy aren’t noticing that they are being fired upon by 5.56 and, although they are taking cover, they aren’t keeping their heads down due to the hail of 5.56 rounds whizzing past. It’s supressive power is almost nil. 7.62 is much greater. 50 browning greater still.
LikeLike
pete said “the anecdotal evidence is that this is exactly the problem. ”
Yes there is a hole in what I am saying because I have myself mentioned that the Taliban aren’t exactly gun shy.
I had better qualify and dig myself out of this hole!!
My understanding is that modern western infantry doctrine (the Cold War scenario) says (I paraphrase) infantry fire is about fixing the enemy who are then hit with something heavier. To do this requires lots of ammo hence the adoption of the 5.56mm (plus other considerations such as logistics.)
But this scenario isn’t panning out in Afghanistan, which should leads me (us?) to question whether this light round/suppression fire approach is the right.
Perhaps we need to look at other conflicts where 5.56mm has been used, perhaps look at Israeli experiences? Then again I once read that though brave soldiers Israelis aren’t on average good shots. And isn’t this another reason why the lighter round was introduced to improve general accuracy with an easier to shoot weapon. (Yes I have just contradicted myself again!!! 😉 )
LikeLike
In all the mass of expert posts, comments, information etc. sent in so far (and I haven’t had time to read even a small percentage of them!) has anyone actually mentioned what the ratios are of weapons are being used by British infantry units in Afghanistan at the moment?
I am not an infantryman and am writing from a position of almost complete ignorance. However, to know the present composition of a Platoon, Section and Fire Team, in terms of weaponry carried, might help to determine whether we have the BALANCE right in terms of firepower, stopping power etc. and to decide on other aspects of the 5.56 mm v 7.62 mm debate which is raging at moment.
It used to be the case, I believe, that, under normal circumstances, the whole platoon, with the exception of the LMG gunners, carried SA80s. A Fire Team, I think, used to consist of: Sec Comd (Cpl), Rifleman, Rifleman and LMG Gunner. What about now? On what scale are the new Sharpshooters issued? Does every Fire Team have one? With only 400 purchased, that seems highly unlikely. On what scale are the new shotguns issued? It might very well be of course that in Afghanistan there is no longer any such thing as an average or typical Fire Team or Section or Platoon and that everything is flexible. However, is it a matter of simply playing around with the balance of small arms and support weapons we have at the moment or does the solution involve something much more radical?
LikeLike
Mike W – “standard” load out for an 8 man section is 6 x L85A2, 2 of which have 40mm UGL, and 2 x LMG (Minimi).
No idea what the issue of L129 or the combat shotguns are – not seen it mentioned anywhere.
It is of note that more L7A GPMG are being toted around on patrols in the bipod “light” role – the role in which they were nominally replaced by the LMG.
This is similar to the fact that we got rid of 51mm mortar from each Platoon HQ section, and replaced them with all the 40mm UGL’s – this was initially a bad move, as 40mm low velocity grenades only had half the range (approx 400m) BUT with new ammo (if we are going to procure and distribute it) the new medium velocity grenades can reach out to 800m PLUS we have also bought some of the U.S. M124 60mm mortars (which apparently are very well thought of by U.S users).
LikeLike
For those of you who haven’t thought about it here is a YouTube clip showing a .308 AR15 by LMT of similar spec to L129.
It is odd to hear Radway Green mentioned by an American as I can see the factory from my front window.
LikeLike
Jed, thanks very much for the info. Interesting to read that “more L7A GPMG are being toted around on patrols in the bipod “light” role – the role in which they were nominally replaced by the LMG.” Makes you think that the sooner the new lightweight version of the GPMG is in service the better.
As far as the new ammo (the new medium velocity grenades that can reach out to 800 m) is concerned, would that be an extended range ammo still to be fired from the UGL or from a different weapon? If that is the new ammo’s range, will there be any need for the Milkor multi-shot grenade launcher, so often touted for British service in these pages? That, I believe, has a maximum range of only 400 m. I suppose the advantage of a multi-shot weapon is that you do not have to re-load and it can therefore provide a kind of “saturation” fire to cover quite a large area. On second thoughts, perhaps some of those would be extremely useful!
LikeLike
As this is my first post here, I’d better start with a declaration of interest in that I’m a long-term promoter of the general-purpose intermediate calibre idea and have made presentations on this subject to the NDIA (in Dallas in May) as well as to the Defence IQ Infantry Weapons conference in London last month (where I was followed by Wilf Owen arguing the opposite case, which was entertaining!).
I’ve just finished reading through all of the posts so far and have a few comments in response to points made:
1. Weight: an intermediate round is heavier than 5.56mm but it’s lighter than 7.62mm and the foot patrols in A’stan are having to carry belt-loads of the bigger round for the L7s. The US military is studying the question of intermediate rounds, and one of the issues is whether a more effective round than 5.56mm means that fewer need to be carried anyway.
2. Effective range: the initial benefit of the extra range of a general-purpose cartridge would accrue to the MGs and DMRs, but there are some impressive developments in sights on the way (including laser rangefinders and ballistic computers which can automatically adjust the sights to compensate for range, shooting up and down hill, and even for crosswinds). When these come along (and its a question of when, not if), any soldier will be able to deliver effective long-range rifle fire – provided that the ammo is capable of it.
3. Cost: We are going to have to replace the current weapons in the foreseeable future anyway (the initial in-service date for the SA80 successor is still 2020), and selecting a long-range intermediate round would halve the number of different weapons we would need to buy.
There’s a lot more, of course. I have posted several articles on my website concerning small arms issues and you’re welcome to browse through them: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm
LikeLike
thanks dude, will do
LikeLike
Ohhh!!! You are that Tony Williams, I have a copy of Rapid Fire. Good book.
LikeLike
“It is odd to hear Radway Green mentioned by an American as I can see the factory from my front window.”
Then you can probably see my house from your back window . . .
LikeLike
It just occured to me that this is all staggeringly reminiscent of the Colt 45 Auto history.
Its a well worn and well attested tale that, the US Army standard revolver round was .38 well enough for all those soft civilised types. Unfortunatly they ran up against some Locals in the Philipines, who for some reason objected to the famous Black Adder principle of imperialism………
(“See someone in a skirt: – shoot him and steal his country”)
The Moros, (I beleive they were called), resolutely refused to stay shot when hit by .38 bullets, and many young officers ended their days on the end of sharp pointy things.
In reaction to that, Colt developed the .45 and it was extinsivly tested (including shooting corpses!
US Stuck with that for 70 odd years so watch out for those “temporary solutions to temporary problems”.
LikeLike
IXION, Thought this may be of interest, excerpt from The Times, 23 March 1933
“The news that the Army is shortly to adopt a new revolver of .38in. calibre has been received with misgivings by many serving officers. In some quarters there is a feeling that if a new type of hand gun is considered necessary we should come into line with the other Great Powers and change over to the automatic pistol, while for others there is a definite objection to a reduction of calibre, on the ground that our .455 service revolver, with its lead bullet, has proved itself to be a most efficient man-stopper.
The stopping power of the .455 bullet is undoubted. The calibre may have been originally a happy chance, but it is probable that the virtue is in the heavy bullet of 265 grains and the comparatively low velocity of the projectile resulting in almost the whole of the energy being transferred to the target at the moment of impact. A smaller bullet of higher velocity expends much of its energy in penetration. The actual shock of collision is therefore much less.
The advantages of a small calibre cartridge as regards weight and bulk are obvious, and there is no secret that Enfield and Woolwich have experimented over many years until a .38 cartridge has been developed which has very considerable stopping power and which is, as far as proving-ground tests can tell, just as good as the old .455.”
LikeLike
Yes and whatever “Enfield and Woolwich” may have tested, you are unlikely to find an officer that fired both in combat (unlikley given the circs I know), who would argue that the .38 was in any way comparable to the .455 for stopping power.
LikeLike
Yes and the US are looking to poss return to the .45 according to several sources
LikeLike
@ Pete
I am across the border in the land of the chip-eaters, pottery, and oatcakes…
@ IXION
A lot has been made of the fact that US special forces started shopping for a .45 within a few years of the US adopting the 9mm Parabellum and the 92F. I am have several volumes of the late great Jeff Cooper’s works so I think you know where I stand on this one.
@ Richard
A few comments back I mentioned a Guns & Ammo article on police carry rounds. The .38special with a lead hollow point 180 grains in weight gave a one stop shot 64% of the time. The Webbley was a frightening weapon. The .455 performed rather like 5.56 and 7.62×39 in that it tumbled into its target at the extremes of its ranges. A bit underpowered. But the revolver due to its break open design wasn’t really up to much stress.
LikeLike
Mike W – ref the 40mm grenades.
The new medium velocity types are completely interchangeable with low velocity and are meant to be fired from under barrel grenade launchers, single shot shouldered launchers or the Milkor Mk32.
I think the argument for the Milkor is more about being able to put 6 grenades on target in six seconds. Whereas the traditional under barrel grenade launcher is a single shot weapon, and not always rapid to reload. So they are often seen as a weapon for initiating a fire fight or as your immediate response to coming under fire yourself.
The latest development, which is midway point if you like is the MetalStorm 40mm under barrel launcher. This stacks three of the MetalStorm version of the 40mm grenade, and is currently being tested. (MetalStorm munitions are electrically fired, and so can be ‘stacked’ in the barrel). I believe from the literature that these are currently limited to low velocity rounds and thus to the 400m range.
Hope that helps 🙂
LikeLike
@Jed: Medium velocity 40mm grenade ammo comes in various strengths, increasing the maximum ballistic range from 400m to between 600m and 800m. There is some concern that the more powerful versions (while OK in the appropriate Milkor or other 6-shot GLs) put too much strain on UGLs and their mountings; they also generate too much recoil to be acceptable for light stand-alone single-barrel GLs.
So the tendency among ammo manufacturers is to back off on the performance increase to make MV more generally usable. For instance, STK of Singapore (one of the biggest 40mm producers with a huge range of products, some in use in the British Army) call their new version “Extended Range” rather than Medium Velocity, and limit it to 600m.
Just for fun, I did a bit of speculation about the direction Metal Storm might go in, here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MetalStorm.htm The company seems to be in perpetual financial difficulties, though, so I don’t know what kind of future it has.
LikeLike
Jed, thanks very much for the info, which does help. The new medium velocity type of grenade looks promising, although I have just seen Tony Williams’ post and hope that what the British Army will be getting are Medium Velocity (which you say can reach out to 800 m) and not what he refers to as “Extended Range” which he says are limited to 600 m.
Yes, whatyou are saying about the Milkor is precisely what I was trying to express in an earlier post. With that weapon an operator can effectively cover a minimum area of 20 x 60 m without reloading (not possible with an under barrel grenade launcher). It is apparently ideal to repel ambush attacks as all 6 of its 40mm grenades can be fired in 3 seconds.
LikeLike
Apologies all for cross posting, originally put this on the wrong thread.
Tony – thanks for getting involved here, I have had your site bookmarked for quite a while 🙂
Interesting point ref MetalStorm and cash flow, perhaps they just need someone to actually buy their wares, but I agree with your “solution looking for a problem” comment. Also like your suggested development of their 3GL !
LikeLike
The points about 40 mm grenade launchers are well made.
It is amazing that the M203 has lasted for as long as it has. When you look at potential future weapons, it isn’t hard to see why. The US OICW, XM25 and French and French PAPOP launchers are interesting weapons, but, rather like early mobile phones, their designs are still excessively large and cumbersome with a far from ideal form factor. Current generation sighting systems add further weight and bulk, they’re not particularly soldier-proof and rapidly consume batteries. Carrying such a weapon is not unlike carrying a briefcase into battle. The grenade launcher component compromises dexterity with the assault rifle component.
Various weapon manufacturers have designed detachable 40 mm launchers to complement their assault rifles systems. Although most systems, like the underslung FN EGLM launcher for the SCAR assault rifle, are only single-shot weapons, they provide the flexibility for every member of a section to carry such a weapon. With all modern assault rifles now fitted with Picatinny / STANAG rails, detachable grenade launchers make a lot of sense.
MetalStorm is another good idea, but it may be simpler, easier and cheaper to design a 40 mm launcher with a 3-5 round box magazine. At any rate, if it were possible to fire three rounds in quick succession, then we probably wouldn’t need combat shotguns. Even a single-shot 40 mm grenade launcher with SG / SSG lead shot makes a formidable close quarter combat weapon.
Next generation sighting systems are likely to be much more compact and clever, allowing considerably greater accuracy over long ranges and effectiveness against targets hiding behind cover. Such sophistication, however, comes with another significant drawback: the price tag. The XM25 is reported to cost £25,000 a copy with the principal cost element being the optical sighting system.
We’re seeing a rapid convergence of these developments and associated technologies, so the grenade launcher should assume a much more prominently in future infantry weapons.
LikeLike
Which reminds me – there’s another article on my website, on new developments in grenade ammo: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenades.htm
I’ve been posting stuff there for so many years, I sometimes forget what’s on it…
LikeLike
Monty
Ref: “they provide the flexibility for every member of a section to carry such a weapon.”
Nope, still too heavy, and when you consider the weight of all the grenades its even worse, 11 x 40mm weighing approx. same as 200 rounds of 5.56 (in belt).
Ref: “but it may be simpler, easier and cheaper to design a 40 mm launcher with a 3-5 round box magazine”
Don’t think so, if it was so much simpler someone would have done it by now !
Ref: “Even a single-shot 40 mm grenade launcher with SG / SSG lead shot makes a formidable close quarter combat weapon.”
Nah, single shot is a bit limiting in this role – go the other way, google for MetalStorm MAUL – combat shotgun using MetalStorm stacked munitions for 5 shots, and its very light. They are working on a version of the British designed FRAG-12 grenade round, so the shot gun now becomes a grenade launcher (although limited to around 200m range).
LikeLike
@Jed,
I don’t know whether you have ever carried 40 mm grenade rounds in the field, but when i used an M203 carrying 4-5 rounds did not increase my load considerably. The detachable grenade launcher developed for the SCAR weighs only a few pounds and can easily be carried in a rucksack when detached. If it were made available at section level, individual soldiers wouldn’t need to carry a vast quantity of ammunition. So. from personal experience, I refute your suggestion about such a weapon being too heavy for general issue. Further, H&K various prototypes of box magazine fed versions of their 40 mm UGL. The XM-25 also has a box magazine, albeit in a much bulkier weapon.
LikeLike
hey jed good to see metalstorm are over their recent troubles and seem to be gaining ground. I was very impressed with the redback anti RPG system. seems something that could be used in the sandpit.
LikeLike
Monty – on this I defer to your greater experience, only ever briefly handled an M16 with an M203 when I was still RN and did a brief exchange with 5th Airborne’s Pathfinders.
So I was basing my comments on pure math (e.g. stated weight of grenade multiplied) not on ever having carried a bag of them around – so you totally got me on that one 🙂
LikeLike
Monty,
You haven’t said precisely what you think about the idea of introducing the Milkor multi-shot grenade launcher into British service. As Jed has said: “I think the argument for the Milkor is more about being able to put 6 grenades on target in six seconds. Whereas the traditional under barrel grenade launcher is a single shot weapon, and not always rapid to reload.”
In your expert opinion, would it be a good idea to introduce one per platoon, or even section? The US Marines have purchased them.
LikeLike
Mike,
I’m afraid I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of the Milkor system to make a valid comment here. It certainly looks interesting, but with the 40 mm system so well established, I think there is likely to be resistance to change.
Jed,
My experience is fast approaching its sell-by date, so my opinions are not more valid than your own interesting and insightful views. I think you have hit the nail on the head: the issue with 40 mm launchers is a single-shot capability and weight is a problem if you want to fire multiple grenades. There is no easy solution to this, so perhaps an out-of-the-box approach is needed. With the experience we’ve gained in Afghanistan, we’ll be sure to spot the potential when someone comes up with a winning idea. I like the XM25 very much and maybe 25 mm will end up providing the best possible solution if Milkor or MetalStorm don’t deliver.
LikeLike
I never liked the Milkor MGL because it’s so bulky. It is a primary weapon, way too large for a secondary one.
There are other repeating grenade weapons around; Russian GM-94, a Bulgarian model from Arcus and the EX-41
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl27-e.htm
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl28-e.htm
These three are more close to a shotgun with tubular magazine than to a revolver.
The Russians even have a captive piston grenade weapon with box magazine (lighter grenade).
http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl53-e.htm
LikeLike
Last I heard, the Americans thought the 6.5 Grendel was a good 1000m special forces round, but the 6.8 SPC was a better “big army” 400m round & easier to feed through LMGs.
My money is on the 6.8SPC.
At the moment it is loaded with a 115 grain bullet while the 6.5 Grendel has a longer 122-123 grain bullet giving better range stability. What if the 6.8 had a FMJBT of 120-123 grains? Would it start to range with the Grendel?
Yes a calibre change costs money but it is peanuts next to an aircraft carrier or hundreds of jet fighters. If we do it when the 5.56 weapons are worn out then costs are minimised.
The RCMP evaluated small bore PDWs & thought them no more lethal than the .22 magnum rimfire pest control cartridge.
When it was legal, I had a S&W 9mm 559 , which when debugged & mastered, I was quite good with. I then went to the then new .40 S&W 4006. At first I could not hit a barn with it, but soon was nearly as accurate as the old 9mm.
If I was in harms way with a handgun, I would prefer a .40 to a 9mm. Most US police forces have ditched the 9mm & gone to .40 S&W or .357 SIG. The US Coastguard has adopted the .40.
I think our special forces should get a new .40 .
I have shot the Glock .40 & that is easier to shoot well than the S&W, if you only have limited training.
LikeLike
CALIBRE DEBATE POSTSCRIPT
I showed this piece and the discussion that followed to a good friend still serving – an Infantry Colonel with tours of the Falklands, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan under his belt – and the most impressive row of medals I’ve seen. His response was very interesting.
De facto, 5.56mm ammunition has already been replaced – by 7.62mm ammunition. Everyone is routinely using 7.62mm weapons in Afghanistan. To quote: ‘They’re like American Express Cards; you don’t leave home without them.’ (That is if you’re old enough to remember the advertising.) The LMT Sharpshooter rifle (L129A1) has been very well received and has proved categorically that well-trained soldiers can engage enemy targets effectively at 800 metres despite increased recoil. Infantry tactics that were since thought to be redundant have become SOPs agains. Above all, thanks to advanced optical gun sights, the effectiveness of single aimed shots is once again paramount. To quote: ‘when you’re carrying almost your own bodyweight in ammunition, you make every round count.’
And that’s the rub: while the effectiveness of 7.62mm ammunition is beyond question, it weighs a tonne. So there has been a shift of emphasis, what soldiers want is not a new 5.56mm round replacement, but a 7.62mm round that is SMALLER AND LIGHTER BUT WITH IDENTICAL LETHALITY.
Any round that falls between 5.56mm and 7.62mm in terms of range and lethality is likely to be a compromised solution. You have to be able to reach out to 1,000 metres with both a rifle and a machine gun.
So the question is what would achieve these requirements? The UK presented the same arguments above to justify changing from .303 to .280 in 1949. This was a calibre reduction of around 7.5% while bullet mass – essential for retaining energy at longer ranges – was 8 or 9 g versus 10.5g for .303. While the selection of 5.56mm represented a calibre reduction of 26%, bullet mass was reduced by more than 50%, from 10.5 g to 4 g. Today, a modern .280 (7mm) aerodynamic bullet could easily be accommodated in a 45mm case (the same length as 5.56mm rounds but slightly larger in diameter (10.6mm versus 9.5mm). The overall weight would be 40% less than 7.62mm but, based on various prototypes developed by US wildcat cartridge developers, the performance would actually exceed that of 7.62mm by the time it had travelled 600m.
American interest in this topic parallels our own. Like the the Remington 6.8mm SPC and Alexander Arms 6.5mm Grendel, it surely only a matter of time before someone comes up with a 7.62 mm replacement that is truly an ideal military cartridge.
LikeLike
An item in Saturday’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ (unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be available in the online version) reports on an article by Royal Marines Capt SA Jones which appeared in the Marines magazine ‘Globe and Laurel’ (also not yet available online).
He condemns the SA80 as overweight, unbalanced, awkward and over-complicated, with controls which are in non-intuitive positions which are difficult and slow to operate under pressure.
The report states that “Commandos have called for a change in the size and quality of the ammunition as on some occasions Taliban have been hit 15 times by the small 5.56mm rounds before dying”. Also, “Troops fighting in Helmand at close quarters, under 25 yards, must achieve a hit on vital organs or blood vessels or the bullet will probably pass through the enemy causing only minor damage.”
The report states that the 5.56mm bullet is too small to put down a charging enemy in a gunfight and that troops would prefer the larger 7.62mm round. It also states that some soldiers have been issued with a 7.62mm Sharpshooter rifle that has proved very popular.
There is of course nothing surprising in any of this, except that a serving soldier has said it in public, apparently thereby breaking the reported MoD diktat that no public criticism of equipment is to be permitted.
LikeLike
@ Tony – Thanks for the info. I hope the officers career isn’t affected by his comments but …
LikeLike
I often wonder about the validity of many (all?) criticisms of small arms effectiveness. Anecdotal evidence quite clearly states than 7.62mm bullets are instantly effective while 9mm parabellum is stopped by wet blankets and 5.56mm is like getting hit with a rolled up newspaper.
When someone says that it takes 15 rounds to bring down a hostile, it strikes me that an SA80 will put that lot out in slightly under one and a half seconds. So is it 15 rounds on full auto, 15 rounds single shot-wait-observe-shoot-again, or 15 holes in a corpse when it has finally stopped moving?
It’s worth noting the other side of the anecdote story, where multiple 7.62mm injuries were unsuccessful in stopping a soldier. There are a few, but I don’t have the references to hand.
It may well be that 5.56mm is too small and too light a bullet to effectively render an opponent hors d’combat but it’s ever so difficult to prove scientifically and isolated anecdotes are not statistically robust.
At close range, any bullet is going to require a hit to centre mass to be effective quickly enough unless we are going start using some kind of neural shock device (a la taser) or bolters. Perhaps we should take soldiers skeet shooting?
LikeLike
@Mr.fred
In your 15 round options you omitted the most likely one – that more than one soldier was firing at the same man, and after he had finally dropped they counted 15 holes in him.
You are right that it is very difficult to obtain data from battlefield reports which meets the standards of scientific analysis. However, if large numbers of soldiers are complaining that 5.56mm is ineffective in battle but that 7.62mm is getting the job done, to the extent that they are actually willing to carry the extra weight of 7.62mm guns and ammo, it would IMO be foolish to dismiss such reports.
You are also right that no small-arms cartridge will deliver 100% effectiveness, but the relative percentages achieved by different rounds really do matter (to the soldiers whose lives are at risk if to no-one else). So if (pulling figures out of the air for the sake of illustration) the 7.62mm is achieving 65% effectiveness in a single-shot rapid incapacitation but the 5.56mm is achieving only 35%, that is a difference well worth having.
To return to the original argument of this thread, the ideal would be to develop a cartridge which can match the 7.62mm’s performance with a lot less weight and recoil. Ballistic analyses indicate that this is entirely feasible.
LikeLike
I still find it hard to believe a man with 14 5.56 holes in him can still fight, or that a single 6.5 would have put him down instantly.
It is of course possible, but I find it easier to believe a guy high on raw opium thought he was rambo and a section all put a burst into him.
LikeLike
“I still find it hard to believe a man with 14 5.56 holes in him can still fight, or that a single 6.5 would have put him down instantly.”
Please see my last post – it’s a question of percentages. A long-range 6.5mm bullet is twice as big as a 5.56mm, and will therefore (on average, other things being equal) do far more damage and put your enemy down significantly more quickly and reliably.
There have been several examples of people still fighting after receiving many solid 5.56mm hits at short range. For example: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/07/cbsnews_investigates/main1692346.shtml
“One particular episode immediately caught our eye. It involved a Special Forces raid in Ramadi in response to the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad back in August 2003. According to a soldier who was there, during a fierce exchange of gunfire, one insurgent was hit seven — count ‘em, seven — times in the torso by the 5.56, only to be brought down by a single shot to the head from a .45 caliber pistol. But before the insurgent died, he killed two U.S. soldiers and wounded seven.”
LikeLike
@DominicJ
I find many of your comments annoying, because they betray not so much stupidity but ignorance. When you don’t truly understand the technical nature of a topic, perhaps it would be better to keep quiet, listen and understand the component issues before belching out a stream of consciousness that adds little to the overall debate.
Noting that you have political aspirations, I would say it is an unfortunate characteristic of many politicians that they think their position immediately confers expert status on any particular subject they decide to take an interest in. Whether this is true or not, a desire to speak rather than to listen, undermines the electorate’s faith in our political system.
As Tony Wiliams, an acknowledged world expert on small arms, points out, an improved round would increase the overall percentage reliability. This is key. The reasons why a 6.5 mm or 7 mm bullet could offer a more reliable performance more of the time are fourfold:
1. Larger size isn’t merely about increased bullet diameter, but also increased bullet mass. Greater mass helps a bullet retain energy at longer ranges. Energy is an important determinant of lethality.
2. Any future UK military ammunition would be designed to yaw more reliably than existing 5.56 mm rounds. Yawing characteristics are what allow a bullet to transfer its energy into the target and thus inflict more damage. Bullet yaw enables a projectile to create a larger wound channel or hole through a target.
3. A new round would also have, by virtue of increased size, mass and energy, better intermediate barrier penetration, I.e. It would not be deflected of have it’s energy depleted by clothing, webbing, car doors etc. This would ensure that the bullet has a better chance of reaching the target.
4. A larger calibre would also offer increased range. While it is alarming to hear of short range performance inadequacies, the most common complaint about current 5.56 mm ammunition is that it doesn’t reach out much beyond 300 metres. The Taleban, who are well aware of this, are routinely engaging ISAF troops at 600 metres plus.
At short range, 5.56 mm ammunition has been likened to a hypodermic syringe. It goes through a target easily, but without causing damage or catastrophic blood loss. This is why it can take multiple hits to incapacitate an enemy in the event that a vital organ is not hit. By contrast, a 7.62 mm round makes such a large hole that in the event it doesn’t hit a vital organ, it still causes rapid blood loss. It is difficult to guarantee rapid incapacitation unless you hit the CNS, therefore causing rid loss of blood is desirable.
All of these arguments have been described above, you might find it helpful to actually read them.
LikeLike
What do you mean my comment seems spammy, its just links!!!
Monty
Since I preface quite a few of my posts with “I’m not sure but”, “I’m not sure of I’vbe grasped the deatils here, is this” or equivilants, I think your comments rather poor form.
Saying I have political aspirations is a bit weak, if I had any great plans to climb the greasey pole, I wouldnt be here trying to learn, I’d be on ConHome arse licking and at CF chanting “Fair Pay on Womens Play” or whatever moronic cause the bag carriers have jumped on this week.
I question the likelyhood of anyone still functioning after being hit that many times simply because it ever seems to happen well beyond anywhere it could be independantly tested.
Theres a website with them all listed
http://www.citizensreport.org.uk/blog/2010/11/26/civilians-killed-by-police-england-wales-2005-to-2009/
I picked out a couple, but spam protection blocked me
So, one the one hand, we have anecdotes from squaddies about this one guy who was still shooting back after 15 hits, on the other, we have detailed forensic reports of people dropping dead after two hits.
I think its only sensible to start asking questions like, was the poor bastard actualy fireing back, or had his finger merely spasmed as his brain tried to understand all these new and exciting signals his nerves were sending in and did the over enthusiastic soldiers as a group simply shoot him until he fell over.
We can discuss things like, has anyone yet proven neurokinetic shock actualy exists yet, I’m pretty sure its still no, but unless one of us is a doctor with a research grant, I doubt we’ll make much progress.
I remain to be convinced that a man who was allegedly still functional after 14 hits from a 5.56 would keel over dead from the first 6.5 or 6.8, or 7.62 for that matter.
Did you know we (Well, ISAF, not you and me) turned up x rays of people with projectiles from flechette rockets in them?
Who survived the surgery to remove them?
The Brown Bess Musket ball weighed 30 grams, generaly, you died on infection when the bullet pushe some of your filthy uniform inside you, actualy killing some required, a hit on an internal organ or severe blood loss.
“All of these arguments have been described above, you might find it helpful to actually read them.”
I have done, none explained why a single 6.5 is better than 14 5.56.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/brit-bullets-too-small-to-beat-high-on-opium-taliban-militants_100266584.html
The problem is not the bullet, its the soldier your shooting at is off his face on pain killers.
Unfortunatly, the pain of being shot isnt going to render him unconcious, he’s going to have bleed out.
Since a fair few of our soliders have suffered multiple loss of limb, and survived, I hope we can agree, this isnt a quick process.
There are several different arguements here
That the war effort is reliant on the average infantryman engaging the Taliban at 600m.
I disagree with that, but its a personal opinion, the matter is unlikely to be tested in reality.
I fully agree that the 5.56 is pretty useless at long range.
There is then the arguement that the 5.56 has poor performance at close range.
This I disagree with, because its a relativly new charge and there are plenty of examples of the bullet acting exactly as advertised.
Opiate/Endorphin overdosing examples that “shrug off” half a dozen 9mm are probably not going to stop for anything short of a 20mm cannon.
And thats the key to this most recent bit.
As far as I’m aware, theres no proof that shows the intermediate cartridge would have brought down that target.
LikeLike
Monty
Your summary is a good one, but just because you lay it out “like it is” does not mean to say we have to agree that a longer ranged intermediate calibre is the holly grail. I have read way more ballistics and gun blogs than I would ever want to since this topic thread started. I remain unconvinced of the advantages of 6.8 / 6.5 or some mythical 7mm ‘super round’ that is yet to be designed.
Of course we can all spout opinions about calibres but is NATO going to change it’s “standards” of 5.56 and 7.62 ? If not then I don’t really see us going off on our own (or with the US) and buying something new (and unique?). As part of above mentioned reading, it appears that the new (slightly legally dodgy – from a Euro perspective) 5.56 rounds deployed by US forces are being well received. Similarly light weight versions of GPMG and the L129A1 DMR in UK hands provide the range to go beyond 600m.
I can’t find figures on the inter-webs, but how many UK fatal casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by MG or sniper fire from beyond 600m ? I can find stories on newspaper sites etc of causalities from ambush and gun fights in compounds, but nothing to make me believe Terry Taliban has a well trained DMR corps who can make the most of their SVD’s – am I just looking in the wrong places for the info ??? Most of the people who I know who are still “in” are not foot patrolling in Helmand so I have no second hand anecdotal evidence, never mind my complete lack of first hand knowledge (!) so I could well be wrong.
LikeLike
Dominic J
I suspect you are mixing killing power with stopping power.
You can shoot & kill someone, but they may still function for minutes/hours, fighting every second til they pass out.
You can shoot & instantly stop someone, but if they get expert treatment within the golden hour, they may make a slow , but full recovery.
You can kill with any calibre. Israeli hit squads used .22 target pistols. 2 expert shots, point blank, 22 rounds fired.
In the Falklands, some troops were shocked that even 7.62 did not have 100% stopping power. You probably need .50 BMG to do that.
Tony Williams is right. It is what works most of the time.
If 5.56 was loaded with hollow points, its stop rate, but probably not its kill rate would improve. The usual suspect , grasping,yuman rites lawyers would go mad though.
When stuck with FMJ, a bigger bullet is best. 6.8 beats 5.56, though if you dont mind the extra size/weight , 7.62 beats 6.8 & .300RSAUM beats 7.62 if you dont mind the extra recoil. Of course you can trump that with .338 Lapua.
In the end it is a trade off.
LikeLike
I thought that I had covered the 15 hole in a corpse option. In my view that’s the least useful from a scientific viewpoint as there is no indication as to which one killed him, at which point he became combat-ineffective. It’s entirely possible that it was the first round that was effective and he would have taken the same time to drop regardless of the number of rounds in him. Lacking even the most basic information, the anecdote doesn’t actually tell us anything beyond that the soldiers felt it worth relating. The later example of .45 succeeding where 5.56mm failed is similarly useless because there is no mention of where the 5.56mm hits were while the .45 was to the head. With a different calibre side arm, that could be an argument for a .22LR, which would have had just the same effect with the same shot placement.
Blood loss is a strange one to shout for during CQB. There is some medical evidence indicating that decapitated heads can retain consciousness for some tens of seconds after the event (which is pretty horrible) or that a severed femoral artery will lead to unconsciousness in about 30 seconds to a minute. That’s about 29 seconds to long in many feasible CQB situations.
Calibre increasing the chance of hitting something is also something that does not make sense to me. The effect is to increase the size of the target areas by a millimetre, which isn’t a huge amount.
This is not to say that an increase over 5.56mm isn’t worthwhile. Additional range through better ballistic coefficient, more impulse transferred to target and more make as much, if not more, sense.
Another impact of larger calibre ammunition is the perceived effect. Trials with the Pedersen device in the US during the First World War showed that smaller calibre rounds scored more hits on targets, but the butt party were scarcely aware that they were under fire compare to the full calibre .30.06. Likewise the soldiers putting the fire down may feel that a round that doesn’t make as much sound and fury is less effective and cause emergent behaviour based on that perception, like using more shots, favouring automatic fire, and actively looking for anecdotal evidence that the round is ineffective.
LikeLike
We can argue this one sideways.
Millions of words have been written on everything for bring back the 30-06 cheerleading US sites to meta anaylasises of regular armed forces.
Hard scientific tests seem to favour the 5.56 school. The gut feeling of most combat soldiers seems to lean towrds the 7.62.
(Look at Arsepedia – ‘ I love the way it terms cover into concealment’).
I am certainly in the bigger is better camp but this is very very complex, and battlefield stories of of people taking 15 rounds to kill I have to say sound a bit suspicious.
LikeLike
LikeLike
The whole question of incapacitation and lethality is indeed complex, and anecdotes can be misleading because it tends to be the freak cases which are memorable. For instance, most people would rightly expect a solid brain-shot at close range with a 9mm pistol to be instantly lethal, but congresswoman Giffords proves otherwise.
So the best approach is this: first, collect as many battle anecdotes as possible, immediately after the event, by interviewing all the soldiers who have taken part in close-range fire-fights, to see what preliminary conclusions can be drawn; second, see to what extent it is possible to replicate their descriptions in the labs, by shooting at ballistic gel and other representative targets. This has been done in the USA and, to some extent, in the UK.
The conclusions are broadly this: a 5.56mm hit is much more likely to fail to incapacitate someone promptly than a 7.62mm hit (on average, other things being equal).
Furthmore, the poor performance of 5.56mm ammunition has been clearly demonstrated in lab tests. These show that while it sometimes inflicts severe wounds, it very often doesn’t.
So the account of the RM Captain, while obviously at the extreme of the range of ineffectiveness, is nonetheless neither unique nor particularly surprising. And he didn’t even mention the bigger problem with 5.56mm, which is its lack of effective range, allowing the Taliban to engage ISAF troops at ranges well beyond anything the 5.56mm can achieve. Hence the rush back to 7.62mm weapons.
To sum up – the 5.56mm lacks effective range and has very unreliable effectiveness even within its effective range. The 7.62mm is much more effective at all ranges, and can reach out to much longer distances, but is heavy and develops too much recoil for controllability in automatic rifle fire.
A long-range intermediate cartridge of c.6.5mm calibre could match the 7.62mm at long range and be much more effective than 5.56mm at all ranges, while being a lot lighter (and lighter-recoiling) than 7.62mm. Thereby enabling every soldier in the squad to be armed with weapons which can be effective at all ranges, and saving money on procurement, training and support into the bargain.
As I’ve said before, it isn’t rocket science, just basic ballistics. Sadly, armies have a consistent record, for a variety of different reasons, for choosing anything but the most logical solution when it comes to small-arms ammunition.
LikeLike
TW
Just out of curiosity.
How small/light could a “manstopper” be if it only had to provide fast debilitation up to 200m?
Can you save anything?
LikeLike
Dominic, a lot of work was done around 2000 in the USA, in conjunction with their special forces, to find a more effective cartridge than the 5.56mm which was still small enough to fit within suitably modified 5.56mm weapons. The result was the 6.8mm Remington SPC. Due to its rapid and reliable yaw characteristics on impact, it inflicts more severe wounds than even the 7.62mm NATO out to 300m, and remains effective to 500m.
However, the 6.8mm is limited to rather short and stubby bullets which lack the 7.62mm’s performance beyond 500m, so couldn’t replace it. However, a round like the 6.5mm Grendel has about the same size, weight and power as the 6.8, but uses a longer, more aerodynamic bullet which enables it to match 7.62mm performance at long range.
That’s why I keep banging on about a general-purpose long-range intermediate. What you need to make a worthwhile improvement over the 5.56mm is very similar to what you need to deliver 7.62mm performance with less weight and recoil, so you might as well combine the two and thereby gain several very worthwhile additional advantages.
You might find my illustrated presentation on this subject of interest, if you haven’t seen it already: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Next%20Generation.htm
LikeLike
I think Tony has summed up the reasoning for a new cartridge very well here. I would add one point. We should never have adopted 5.56 mm as a standard NATO cartridge. It was simply too small to ever match the performance of 7.62 mm. Accumulated feedback as well as empirical testing now suggests emphatically that 5.56 mm is too small to deliver acceptably consistent lethality in combat. Ballisticians said this at the time of its introduction and despite several attempts to produce revised versions of this calibre, the element of uncertain it introduced has never been eradicated.
As Tony wisely points out, no cartridge will ever deliver 100% guaranteed lethality and we would be entirely wrong to suggest that any intermediate option would be an all singing and dancing ‘silver bullet’, if you’ll excuse that metaphor. But since larger calibres generally deliver more certain results, a larger infantry cartridge would undoubtedly increase the percentage chance of rapid incapacitation.
In many ways, our debate about the pros and cons of 5.56 mm is now redundant as the Army has re-embraced 7.62 mm weapons. As much as smaller calibre weapons may remain in UK armouries, like the LSW version of SA80 they will not be used when 7.62 mm weapons are available instead.
What the debate has now morphed into is a discussion of whether we should simply stick with big, heavy but reliable 7.62 mm, which generally gets the job done on the battlefield, or develop something new that follows the intention and spirit of small high velocity calibres.
This is the very debate that the UK entered into at the close of World War 2. It led to the development of the .280/30 round and the EM2. Previous to that, the USA had developed the .276 Pedersen cartridge, which was an identical solution to the same problem. Both did exactly what was expected of them. They were not adopted for political reasons rather than military ones. And here we are again, half a century later, again debating the same topic.
Anyone who has studied this subject in any detail has no doubt that we can so easily get this right. Modern propellant chemistry and advanced manufacturing techniques have come a long way in the last 50 years. The body of accumulated ballistic data now publlicly available provides compelling evidence for change. However, whether we will finally see the simple sense of adopting an appropriate universal military calibre is by no means certain.
LikeLike
Monty
Ref: “Anyone who has studied this subject in any detail has no doubt that we can so easily get this right. Modern propellant chemistry and advanced manufacturing techniques have come a long way in the last 50 years. The body of accumulated ballistic data now publlicly available provides compelling evidence for change. However, whether we will finally see the simple sense of adopting an appropriate universal military calibre is by no means certain.”
And this is where I still disagree. I have been all over the blogospere / interwebs; there are so many places where Tony pops up with intelligent comments; but there is still the ever ongoing debate about whats best, be it 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, non-existent 7mm super bullet, and then of course we have the new tech of polymer cases or even caseless rounds.
But while its not rocket science, “just ballistics’ its really not the simple is it, factor in weight of weapon and ammo carried, the fact that despite the vociferous NRA “Auddie Murphy” lobby, not every action in Afghanistan is a ROE crippled 800m plus gun fight and as Tony himself has stated, there has to be the consistent will to break the status quo of 5.56 / 7.62.
Finally, I firmly do not believe there is “one round to rule them all” !
LikeLike
jed, love that pic of the old crusty’s with the smle, couln not quite make out on the pic but they looked like .303 rounds, bugger an intermediate round, lets get everyone back on .303 😉
LikeLike
Hi Monty,
RE “In many ways, our debate about the pros and cons of 5.56 mm is now redundant as the Army has re-embraced 7.62 mm weapons. As much as smaller calibre weapons may remain in UK armouries, like the LSW version of SA80 they will not be used when 7.62 mm weapons are available instead.
What the debate has now morphed into is a discussion of whether we should simply stick with big, heavy but reliable 7.62 mm, which generally gets the job done on the battlefield, or develop something new that follows the intention and spirit of small high velocity calibres.
This is the very debate that the UK entered into at the close of World War 2. It led to the development of the .280/30 round and the EM2. Previous to that, the USA had developed the .276 Pedersen cartridge”
Why don’t we just face it:
The OPFR normally has something like…
By the year 1999 the 7N14 cartridge replaced the 7N1 cartridge. The 7N14 cartridge is a new load developed especially for the SVD. The 7N14 consists of a 151 grain projectile which travels at the 830 m/s, same as that of the old 7N1 rounds but it has a lead core projectile.
-range 500 + (to 800)
– plus plenty of the standard 7.62×54R… coming out at automatic fire setting…
One of the makers of the rifle (& ammo) is:
Iran – Made by Defense Industries Organization as the Nakhjir.
There are (?) plenty of these in A-stan.
Soo-u;
if it was an established fact that the critical success factor in fighting with “the panzers” was the speed of opening & rate of fire, rather than accuracy,
Now, we just have to match (in one or several rifles/ MGs) carried at the squad/ fire team level,with: the range first, then the accuracy, and ONLY THEN the lethality
… and the answer is?
– It cannot be more MGs at the lowest level, makes a mockery of the manpower; has to be another kind of mix?
Not meaning it is down to you nor TW who have kept this debate well informed!
LikeLike
I’ve now seen a copy of the actual article in the Marines magazine, and while the Telegraph report is factually accurate it gives a very misleading impression of it (which should surprise no-one).
The article is not a rant from a disillusioned officer, it is merely summarising the contents of a paper from the Royal Marines which was sent to Shrivenham (the MoD education/training/research centre) last year as a contribution to the current research into the next UK infantry rifle, supposed to enter service in about ten years time. The criticism of the SA80 was in the context of “we don’t want to make the same mistakes in the next rifle” which is fair enough.
The criticism of the 5.56mm ammunition is also reasonable (and illustrated with a gel test comparison between 5.56mm and the much superior 6.8mm Rem). This section starts by saying that: “Many (but not all) marines prefer a larger calibre than 5.56mm” but concludes that “the expense of recalibrating the BAE ammunition factories and the diplomatic effort of moving all NATO countries onto a new intermediate calibre means a future rifle will almost definitely be 5.56mm or 7.62mm calibre.”
I could take issue with a few points of detail in the article, but I find it interesting that the only reasons given for not adopting an intermediate round are not performance-related, but simply that it would be too much trouble. It is also interesting that 7.62mm is being seriously suggested as a possible replacement for the 5.56mm in the standard infantry rifle.
The Marines paper has apparently stimulated a lot of discussion within the military, which is all to the good.
LikeLike
Hi TW,
As you have read the detail of the input from RM ( and supposedly many more?), RE: your “It is also interesting that 7.62mm is being seriously suggested as a possible replacement for the 5.56mm in the standard infantry rifle”
– which in-production rifle (broadly, ie. anywhere)with the 7.62 would hit most of the criticism on the head?
LikeLike
The two principal 7.62×51 military rifles (excluding sharpshooter/sniper types) currently in production are the HK 417 and the FN SCAR-H. Both are recent designs and are achieving sales to special forces. Both are also traditional designs, not bullpups (the KelTec RFB commercial rifle is the only 7.62mm bullpup on the market). Both are also modular, with various barrel lengths and another bits swappable or adjustable. The FN SCAR has a folding stock and is also lighter, making it easier to carry.
I have fired both guns (semi-auto only) and prefer the HK 417. It has a more solid feel and the extra weight makes it more controllable; the FN jumps around all over the place, and I have heard that bits tend to drop off it once soldiers get hold of it. Mind you, I don’t have to carry the things all day…
LikeLike
TW
Could you fit the 6.8 in a PDW?
The Magpul is already a 5.56 I believe? Although I’m not sure that weapon has actualy been built.
You improve the lethality of soldiers out to 200m, and save 2kg per man (give or take).
Still not sure I entirely believe a single 6.8 is more likely to incapacitate than half a dozen PDW hits, based on odds of actualy hitting something important if nothing else, but I’m happy to concede the point for now.
LikeLike
Dominic,
Of course one 6.8mm hit is unlikely to do as much damage as half-a-dozen 5.56mm hits, but that is not a reasonable comparison, since each 6.8 round only weighs 1.5x each 5.56mm round. Therefore the question should be: will two 6.8mm hits do more damage than three 5.56mm hits? To which the answer is – most certainly (on average, other things being equal etc).
In principle any 5.56mm weapon can be rechambered for 6.8mm, but there may be reasons (e.g. bolt diameter) why some can’t. I don’t know about the Magpul PDW.
LikeLike
TW
“Of course one 6.8mm hit is unlikely to do as much damage as half-a-dozen 5.56mm hits, but that is not a reasonable comparison,”
But thats exactly the point I was argueing against on the Marine Captains article.
“In principle any 5.56mm weapon can be rechambered for 6.8mm, but there may be reasons (e.g. bolt diameter) why some can’t. I don’t know about the Magpul PDW.”
I just picked the Magpul because its currently 5.56, and a bullpup.
It would probably make a lot of sense to have something new designed.
So.
5 PDW’s, in 6.8, should save about 12kg on the weapons, but lose about 4kg on the ammunition (hmm, that doesnt sound right) compared with the current L85.
Even if I’ve not stuffed my ammunition weight calculation, thats 300 7.72 rounds for the machine gun, or 40 40mm grenades.
LikeLike
I wade in to this debate with trepidation due to the vast amount of knowledge on display but thought I’d bring up an idea I came across: saboted ammo.
The Russians have developed a 9x39mm round by “necking up” their 5.45/7.62mm rounds. They use it in a “super Sub-machine gun/Micro Assault rifle”; IIRC twice the range and three times the energy of pistol 9mm rounds.
Now could we (and would we want to?) Develop a saboted round of between 6.5 -7mm to fire from the 9mm barrel? Pro: you can have one rifle/LMG that’s good at both CQB and distance shooting simply by changing the magazine. Con: you’ll need to supply two types of ammo and have to make tactical choices on what proportion of the sections load will be which. NB: obviously NATO rounds are not x39, so we’re probably taking x45? What do people think?
LikeLike
Hi Gareth,
as you noticed, I respected the title of this thread and posted re: the 20mm rifles onto the open thread.
Hi TW,
I expected the answer (HK) but don’t know enough of these things, so now I am more convinced
LikeLike
@ ACC – My apologies. I shall re-post in the Open Thread.
@ All – Please post any responses to the concept above in the Open Thread.
LikeLike
In the light of the Marines’ article I have revisted my illustrated presentation on this subject and given it an update: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Next%20Generation.htm
LikeLike
@Gareth,
Saboted ammo could be an interesting option and various manufacturers have experimented with alternative designs. One problem it overcomes is loss of energy, due to the greater mass of the projectile before the sabot is discarded. However, saboted ammo is more complex to produce and contributes to increased barrel wear, so is likely to be more costly to produce. I believe that the problem can be solved simply by selecting the right calibre.
We’ve been somewhat deflected by the Royal Marine officer’s account of 15 rounds of 5.56 mm ammo being required to put down a single insurgent. I don’t doubt that this happened, but it doesn’t mean that that 5.56 mm is totally ineffective. Indeed, US Special Forces have overcome many of the perceived disadvantages simply through training. Effectiveness is largely about shot placement: hitting the central nervous system, heart of or other vital organ. If you do this, then one round of 5.56 mm can rapidly incapacitate an enemy.
However good at shooting individual soldiers may be, combat fatigue and stress make accurate shooting difficult in all situations. So the lack of effectiveness / lethality is usually attributable to what happens when a 5.56 mm bullet fails to strike the desired target area. Uncertainty is what you get when you hit a non-vital area such as the stomach, shoulder, or the muscles of a limb. You hope that the hole made by the bullet will be large enough to cause a rapid and catastrophic loss of blood. If a bullet makes a large enough channel through a human body, massive haemorrhaging and the resulting loss of blood pressure required to sustain brain functions can be achieved within seconds. If the hole is not sufficiently large, the body’s ability to clot blood can quickly negate the effect of the wound.
The feedback I keep hearing from UK troops in Afghanistan is that the wound from a 5.56 mm round can be quite small in the event that it strikes a non-vital area. This would explain instances of Taliban and other Afghans arriving at Camp Bastion for surgery. In most cases, they have serious wounds but they are often not immediately life-threatening.
If shot placement is an issue for 5.56 mm weapons, it is also an issue for 7.62 mm weapons, especially as the larger calibre has increased recoil which negatively affects shooting accuracy. However, when a 7.62 mm round fails to hit the optimal target area, it still tends to create a large wound that causes rapid loss of blood. As I said before, a hit with 5.56 mm is better than a miss with any larger calibre.
So selecting the right calibre is about making trade-offs: energy, range, recoil and lethality versus a higher number of rounds, lower weight and decreased recoil. You could argue that neither 5.56 mm nor 7.62 mm are optimised: one is too small, the other is to large and heavy.
i just don’t think we can continue to advocate either calibre without properly investigating whether an alternative calibre would do a better job. I am totally agnostic as to what that calibre should be.
LikeLike
@DominicJ
The 6.8mm SPC round designed by Remington is better than any existing 5.56 mm cartridge in terms of lethality within the performance envelope of the latter. However, a major concern is the need to engage enemy forces at ranges beyond 600 metres (as a squad if not individually). This is where the 6.8 mm round falls down. For this reason, it has now largely been discounted by the US Military, especially as the new M855A1 EPC round is believed to provide enhanced lethality.
Many potential 5.56 mm replacement rounds, including the Remington 6.8 mm SPC and the 6.5 mm Grendel have been hamstrung by the need to incorporate them within existing 5.56 mm weapon actions. A 6.5 mm Grendel encased in a slightly longer cartridge could well deliver worthwhile ammunition and weight savings. The problem with PDWs is that short barrels tend to reduce range and accuracy. The expert view is that the 14.5″ barrel of the US Army’s M4 is too short. Many emerging new designs use a 16.5″ barrel. I tend to think that this is the minimum.
The UK has had such a nightmare with Sa80 during the course of its service that think it unlikely we’ll select a bullpup next time round. For me the most likely option will be a US M16/ M4 clone or whatever the USA chooses to replace it with. Indeed, piston operated (instead of direct gas impingement) M16/M4 clones seem still to be the benchmark assault rifle design.
In the 1950s, the USA believed that the M14 was an optimal design until Eugene Stoner presented the AR15 (M16). It would be great to see a revolutionary new design that totally changed the rules.
LikeLike
Dominic J
If you want a PDW that is credible at 200m , then look at the KAC (Knights Armament) 6×35.
A good SMG replacement, but I still favour the 6.8mm SPC for general army use.
LikeLike
Monty
I dont consider a single calibre the best outcome.
To get an IW to work out to 800m, its going to have to be big and heavy, comparitivly.
I think that weight is far better spent on getting a few weapons to work at range.
I may be wrong, but I think GPMG, DMR, Grenade Launcher Revolver (GLR?) beats 8 “good” infantry rifles.
I’m not quite convinced the PDWs dont provide enough “stopping power”, but I’m prepared to accept it could be a problem. I’m a long was from convinced that battle rifles beat grenade launchers and machine guns.
JH
My knowledge of small arms is extremely limited, however the Magpul seems much better for the use I envision.
Its 19″, the KAC is 30″.
The KACs ammunition sounds interesting, but the weapon less so.
Anything that can produce extremely reliable 3 shot 2 hit incapacitation at 0-200m and weighs as little as possible gets my vote.
LikeLike
I rather prefer the concept of a universal modular rifle chassis firing a common round that is also used by a belt-fed machine gun.
Stripped down, it’s a PDW. Short, light barrel, retractable stock, minimal furniture, basic sights.
Build it up a bit and it’s general purpose rifle – longer barrel with better sights and a bit more furniture and attachments to make it easier to shoot further.
Add the match grade barrel and long range sights and you’ve got the DMR – no need for a separate weapon and therefore separate or specialist training.
On top of it all, spend a bit of time teaching musketry.
LikeLike
Monty – after TW suggested looking at the 6 x 35 I researched it and would agree – firing it from the Magpul PDW
Mr Fred. According to TW, and my own more limited experience of pulling triggers, the cartridge that is going to get you good performance at 800m in a belt fed MG is NOT going to be usable in an modular rifle configured as a short barreled PDW / PDR – too much recoil, flash and bang.
However even a Remington ACR firing TW’s “favourite” 6.5mm Grendel would be lighter than SA80 family, but I seem to remember reading that is not shaped well to for belt feed or somesuch.
Personal Pulse Gun – that’s what I say (Babylon 5 reference, if your old enough….)
LikeLike
B5 isnt that old, and any self respecting nerd should have watched it.
If only for the awesomeness that was Londo
LikeLike
JED AND DJ
When i comes to future weapons, I still prefer; –
‘Phase Plasma riffle in the 50w range’
As requested by Arnie.
LikeLike
TW if your reading – notwithstanding my desire for a B5 PPG, let me postulate something for your expert critique
IF LSAT case telescoped is mature enough, and it certainly seems to be, and your aerodynamic 6.5mm is chosen as the bullet design, which by being designed into a CT round will keep the weight down to at least 5.56 range if not less, would said round, in your expert opinion be able to be used from a 10.5 inch barrel ?
I am still thinking of the shortest, lightest weapon possible for squad members. 6.8mm SPC was designed to be accurate and lethal past 200m from such a short barrel, but scouring the interwebs I can see no anecdotal evidence of 6.5mm experience in short barreled carbines.
So if we had the holy grail single intermediate cartridge, in CT form to keep the weight down, could we actually use it in a smallish, lightweight form factor ?
(Again thinking Magpul PDR type weapon in 6.5mm CT).
LikeLike
Jed,
A cartridge design which produces good ballistics in a 20 inch barrel would be different from one designed to be used in 10 inch barrel. Also, a bullet designed to reach to 1000 metres would be different from one optimised for 200m.
The answer to the problem is of course a bullpup. With a 16 inch barrel, it would be about the same overall length as an M4 carbine shortened to an 8 inch barrel (from the actual 14.5 inches). That ought to be short enough for any sane purpose.
LikeLike
Gents, please forgive my lack of knowledge.
I have heard that some of the problems regarding stopping power, faced by troops using the L85A2 (and family) stem from the relative lower power of the required ammunition (relative to other nations 5.56.)
Firstly; can anyone confirm whether or not this is true?
Secondly; if this is the case, would not the adoption of an alternative 5.56 weapon in the short to medium term be a workable solution. This would allow British forces to use a better 5.56 round.
Of course, if 5.56 has had it’s day then all of the above is moot.
Cheers, Alan.
LikeLike
Each major nation loads its own ammo to best suit its own guns, regardless of the STANAG (NATO standardisation agreement). Radway Green, our only ammo plant, makes two versions of the 5.56mm ammo: one for the SA80, the other for the M4 used by special forces and for export. However, the velocities are similar, it’s the pressure characteristics which are different to suit the different actions.
The biggest difference in 5.56mm lethality is down to the fact that UK bullets do not fragment on impact, US bullets sometimes do causing nastier wounds. The US has also recently introduced more effective ammo: the MK318 SOST (USMC) and M855A1 EPR (US Army) but the British would be very unlikely to use these for legal reasons, as explained in my article (linked in my last post).
LikeLike
Alan
I think the L85 fires a slightly lighter bullet because its pants and jams a lot on the usual ones.
But some users of normal 5.56 complain about lack of “stopping power”.
LikeLike
No, the bullet weight is the standard 4.0g of the NATO SS109 specification. The US M855 bullet is the same weight, the difference being that it has a slightly thinner jacket whch permits fragmentation when it yaws at high velocities.
LikeLike
Thanks for clearig that up for me gentlemen.
So then, is it the general concensus that 5.56 (as a military round at least) has had it’s day? (If indeed it ever had one)
Cheers, Alan.
LikeLike
There are still supporters of the 5.56mm, including the MoD which froths at the mouth with Pavlovian predictability to any suggestion that the armament and equipment of the British forces is anything other than the best in the world, ever. Getting them to admit that something needs to be done about the 5.56mm makes rolling that boulder uphill look easy (I know, I’ve been trying for years).
The top ranks of the US military will also defend the 5.56mm, if only because an admission that they’ve sent out their troops with weapons known to be inadequate would probably result in their being buried under lawsuits. They’ve also just spent a not-so-small fortune on developing the new M855A1 5.56mm ammo, which they’re touting as the best thing short of a Star Trek phaser, so they’re not going to admit that it has any problems, are they?
The demand for change comes from those at the sharp end, like the Marines whose report has just been publicised. Senior officers don’t like to rock the boat – it might jeopardise their careers.
I’ve never been at the sharp end, but I have studied the issues and read the battle and test reports for many years. My conclusion is that the 5.56mm should never have been adopted in the first place and all the efforts to improve the ammo since then have been sticking-plaster solutions to a problem which requires amputation. The cartridge is just too damn small.
LikeLike
TW didn’t 5.56 or rather .223 Remmington start life as a vermin (or varmint) round?
LikeLike
TW – once again thanks very much for your input.
I will not prolong this conversation any further as you have just cemented my opinion ref no “one ring to rule them all” with your comment:
“Also, a bullet designed to reach to 1000 metres would be different from one optimised for 200m.”
2 rounds, one for LMG and DMR one for infantry rile / carbine, doesn’t matter what the caliber is.
LikeLike
@Jed
Imagine you’re in Afghanistan on patrol and you’re advancing across a large open plain overlooked by high ground on one side. You’re carrying a standard L85A2 in 5.56 mm along with five other men in your section. Suddenly, a sniper opens up and you estimate that he is some 600-700 metres away. You can do nothing. Luckily, two men within the squad have 7.62 mm weapons, so they blast away as the rest of you scoot to cover. Then you discover that there are 8-10 enemy firing at you. You can do nothing but sit there and curse until the RAF arrives with a 500 lb bomb.
On another day, your LMG gunner has been taken sick so you’ve been allocated to carry the section’s 7.62 mm GPMG. This time you’re heading towards a compound where you suspect Taliban insurgents are lurking. A shot rings out and you realise the enemy are hiding in a building just ahead of you. You burst through the door and peer into the inky blackness. You spot the glint of an AK47 in the corner, but just as you’re trying to level 28 lbs of heavy metal in his general direction, he gets off a shot first.
In both situations, part of your section is ineffective and redundant.
Now imagine this. The MoD in its wisdom has decided to re-equip the Army with a new family of weapon all in a new common calibre that combines the range and lethality of 7.62 mm with the low recoil, low weight and small size of 5.56 mm. The family of weapons consists of five variants: a basic assault rifle with 16.5″ barrel, a designated marksman rifle with 20″ barrel, a light machine gun with 20″ barrel and a carbine version with 12.5″ barrel (primarily for use by armoured and rear-echelon troops). The LMG version has a 50-round box magazine and is complemented by a belt-fed MMG with interchangeable barrels to provide sustained fire support when needed.
In the first situation above, all members of the squad would be able to return fire. In the second situation, your response time would be decreased due to less weight and a more compact weapon – even if you were carrying the belt-fed machine gun.
In all situations, you would have reduced the overall weapon and ammunition load carried by the section while increasing its firepower and flexibility across a variety of combat situations, increasing its ability to share ammunition among the squad, and decreasing its dependency on costly air strikes and artillery barrages. Even those equipped with shorter barrel weapons would be able to deliver suppressive fire to longer ranges. In other words, an ammunition that genuinely combined the effectiveness of 7.62 mm with the packaging advantages of 5.56 mm would be a force multiplier.
All this hinges on whether the calibre you choose does what it says on the tin. Is it truly possible to create such a single universal cartridge? I firmly believe it is. The UK firmly believed it could in 1949 and did and then did so again in 1970.
Would the adoption of a single GP cartridge eliminate everything else? Of course not. We’d retain .338 and .50 for the roles they currently perform. For very close-range work we’d retain combat shotguns and 12-guage ammunition. Without 5.56 mm, we could even investigate developing a proper PDW if that was what the Army wanted (so far they haven’t asked for such a weapon).
At the moment, both 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm calibres are masquerading as general purpose calibres. They are not, although 7.62 mm is markedly superior.
LikeLike
Monty
I hear you, I just disagree.
You said: ” In other words, an ammunition that genuinely combined the effectiveness of 7.62 mm with the packaging advantages of 5.56 mm would be a force multiplier.”
TW said: “Also, a bullet designed to reach to 1000 metres would be different from one optimised for 200m”
So does that not mean that your 12.5 barreled carbine (and why is this only for REMF and vehicle crew ?) is going to adverse qualities of some variety with respect to controllability, muzzle flash or something else ? Or that in the CQB scenario the super aerodynamic bullet (however much heavier) that is designed to reach out to 1 km with enough kinetic energy to hurt, is just going to slice right through the target without tumbling a la the 5.56 ????
These are questions, not assertions. I see not evidence anywhere of a single general purpose caliber / round type that is not jack of all trades and master of non.
By the way, what exactly is wrong with me taking cover and spotting for the guy with the 7.62 DMR ? Why can’t I use MV 40mm grenades from an UBGL to join in the fight ? Yes I know its not pin point accurate, and please don’t lecture me on ROI not winning the hearts and minds of the locals by accidently killing them, I know all that.
The LMG gunner, even if carrying a super light weight LSAT caseless ammo weapon should not be first through the door in the room clearing scenario – and yes I know shit happens and he might just have to be, but my point is I think we both have enough experience – no wait, I think you maybe have much more than me, but we can both write scenarios to back up arguments.
I will not be convinced – there is no one bullet to rule them all 🙂
LikeLike
@ Monty – “The family of weapons consists of five variants: a basic assault rifle with 16.5″ barrel, a designated marksman rifle with 20″ barrel, a light machine gun with 20″ barrel and a carbine version with 12.5″ barrel (primarily for use by armoured and rear-echelon troops). The LMG version has a 50-round box magazine and is complemented by a belt-fed MMG with interchangeable barrels to provide sustained fire support when needed.”
If the rifle was a bullpup do you need to have a 16.5″ barrel? Could all rifle equipped soldiers have essentially a DMR with 20″ barrel? and if your DMR has automatic/burst fire do you need a separate LMG?
On a separate note, what about having a machine pistol under the barrel of those rifles that don’t have UGL’s?
LikeLike
The 222 remington Magnum of 1958 was rejected by the US military, who then went on to adopt a 2mm shorter version of the same round, the 5.56 x 45.
The 222 Rem Mag would have been a better choice. With a 70 grain bullet, it would still scoot along at 2900-3000 ft per sec. The same as a 5.56×45 with a 62 grain bullet.
Better yet, target shooters got hold of the 222 Rem Mag & created the 6×47. Less prone to wind deflection at 200yds. An 85 grain FMJBT at 2800 ft per sec.
The magazine would have been 2mm longer, but you would have had the same number of rounds as the 5.56.
Another left field ideal cartridge, the Czech 7.62 M52 of the 1950s. They were made to drop it in favour of the Russian 7.62×39.
A czech 7.62 M52 necked down to 7mm might be the ideal general use cartridge.
LikeLike
Hi Gareth @ 6:26,
RE “On a separate note, what about having a machine pistol under the barrel of those rifles that don’t have UGL’s”
– or a Jatimatic, preloaded on your belt. An over-sized “revolver” when the going gets tough, or too close-up?
– the favourite of gansters; most of them could not get it as it was too deadly, too many eyes on the shipments [Bonus points for : where was it designed/ built?]
LikeLike
I think the debate is over, I have seen the future and here it is 🙂
http://www.defensereview.com/sero-gepard-gm6-lynx-lightweight-bullpup-semi-auto-50-bmg-12-7x108mm-russian-anti-materiel-rifle-meet-the-hungarian-mobile-light-infantry-artillery-sensation/
LikeLike
@ ACC – I believe the Jatimatic is a Finnish design; IIRC it had a diagonally sliding bolt and a reduced ROF for accuracy/controlability. Nice.
I certainly would like to see a MP given to all troops, like a dagger/short sword to Spearman, Archers, etc, but cost wise probably only given to support troops.
Having one attached to the front end of a rifle would reduce the felt recoil, increase accuracy and would avoid the need/time to switch between two separate weapons; having thought about it, a under barrel shotgun might be a better idea with the MP in a holster for back up?
LikeLike
Hi TD, @8:56,
My wife also says the debate is over (dinner ready!), but I would refer you to the 20mm sniper rifle discussion that GJ and I had – and we tried to respect the “Small Calibre” title (joke-joke)
– must answer his bit before I go…
LikeLike
Hi Gareth,
That is it (I am a Finn, for all of my sins, like …the nation having more artillery now than the Bundeswehr).
But do check the weight of it, might change your opinion/view.
LikeLike
@ Gareth Jones
Towards the end of WW1 one of the Allied powers developed a kit for converting their rifle in the field to use a 6.5mm round(?) (the round was capable of punching a good way into a pine plank.) When I say convert it was more an attachment that could be swapped in out during a field strip. But for the life of me I can’t remember more.
Saying that I don’t think anybody running around A-stan would thank you for the extra weight.
LikeLike
@ X – Hmmmm, true. And more ammo of a different calibre… Considering the near universal use of modular add-ons, could we design a rifle to be lighter? Recoil would be terrible without the add-ons but in combat they would have scope, UGL/shotgun, possibly bi-pod, hand grip, etc?
LikeLike
@ TD – I like it! I’m starting to think of the “Sharpe” series and return of skirmishers again… better go lay down in a dark room…
LikeLike
TD @ 8:56 PM
Good Lord! It’s “rods from God” the infantry version. But seriously in my foolish fashion I’d almost rather see one of these in a squad of properly-trained riflemen than an LSW. (Again, and here I’d turn to our field experts, better effect leaving the caroet-of-fire role to the jimpy anyway?) Not as much spray for suppressing fire but what you hit stays bloody hit. Including, you know, some armoured cars.
Monty,
Without stepping into the fine-grain fire team composition argument, just touching on the PDW and barrel/bullet mods, any chance of recycling L85A2 as a sort of carbine alternative for PDW if the five-seven around actually does what FN Herstal says on the tin? Or are their too many mechanisms beyond the barrel/chambering that would need to change? Thinking of that also in terms of Gareth/ACC’s comments about a “short-sword” backup for broadsword/spearmen. Or at that point, if you’re talking about relatively close-range combat, would it be as much use to buy a lot of Five-Seven pistols with long mags? A body-armour stopper pistol like the old “man-stopper” shock of the Webleys.
LikeLike
x are you thinking of the Pederson device (I think that was it)?
It was trialled by the US forces, but found “unsuitable”
read more here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedersen_device
LikeLike
@ Alan
That’s the sausage!!!
Why did I think 6.5mm???? Um. That will come to me eventually.
LikeLike
x probably some other contraption invented at or around the same time, or could be all the talk of 6.5 Grendel on various boards.
LikeLike
TD ooo-er i’ve come over all funny even looked at the spams newer version, wish we had that GP6 when i was a RMQ!!!
LikeLike
Or it could be the .276″ (7mm) cartridge of the same name developed between the wars.
LikeLike
@ X and Alan – thank you for info and link; very interesting idea! Now to bring back the Lee Enfield…;p
LikeLike
@Jed: “TW – once again thanks very much for your input.
I will not prolong this conversation any further as you have just cemented my opinion ref no “one ring to rule them all” with your comment:
“Also, a bullet designed to reach to 1000 metres would be different from one optimised for 200m.”
2 rounds, one for LMG and DMR one for infantry rile / carbine, doesn’t matter what the caliber is.”
Then you have taken the wrong lesson from what I said, and are merely cherry-picking specific points out of context to support your view.
I believe that all of the gun-carrying infantry should have weapons capable of engaging the enemy at long range, for the reasons Monty gave and also because it simplifies procurement, supply and training as well as use in the field.
My own ideal future equipment would differ slightly from Monty’s, as follows:
I agree with him that the standard rifle should be in an intermediate calibre (6.5+mm) able to match the long-range performance of the current 7.62mm but with a lot less weight and recoil. However, it would be in a well-designed (i.e. not like the SA80) selective-fire bullpup so that it could have a decent-length barrel (20″) while still being short and handy enough for urban fighting. So, no carbine version necessary. Also no separate long-barrelled marksman version needed (although the best shots may be issued with more advanced sights for long-range shooting, these could be strapped to any rifle). Choosing the bullpup layout cuts down the versions of the rifle required to just one.
The rifle should be accompanied by a belt-fed LMG as Monty said.
For troops whose jobs do not involve using small arms (they could be using heavier weapons or have other tasks) I would adopt a PDW: a compact machine pistol with a folding/collapsible shoulder stock and forward handgrip, in a calibre capable of reaching out to 200m. My preferred choice of those available would be the Brugger & Thomet MP9 in 6.5mm CBJ. The ammo is the same overall size as the current 9mm (in fact 9mm guns can use it with just a barrel swap) so it could also be used in the service pistol (if we need one). The advantage of this solution is that the MP9 (and the similar HK MP7) is compact and light enough be holstered so that when not in use, it’s out of the way but still instantly available.
Shortened PDW versions of the rifles (such as the L22A2 in British service) don’t work that well because they are much bulkier and heavier than a machine pistol, and suffer from serious muzzle flash and blast which make training more difficult. They certainly cannot be holstered. Similar objections apply to the 5.7mm FN P90, which is quite bulky and weighs as much as an M4 carbine.
So there you have it – one rifle and one LMG which are designed to be effective across the entire small-arms engagement range of 0-1000m, plus a PDW for the grenadiers, mortarmen, air and vehicle crews etc.
LikeLike
I saw a presentation online a few days ago where the word SA80A3 was mentioned, new bits to make it lighter
The SMLE and that .50cal semi auto thing still gets my vote though!
LikeLike
For the avoidance of doubt, the LMG I mentioned in my previous post would use the same 6.5+mm long-range ammunition as the rifle.
TD, the L85A2 can be fitted with Picatinny rails in place of the usual plastic handguard, but these can be swapped back again and have not changed the gun designation.
I have heard rumours of a lighter version of the L85 being worked on; perhaps someone read my web article on the SA80 in which I said:
“Since HK replaced most of the mechanical parts in producing the A2 rebuild, then why not drop the same mechanical design into a new, lighter, polycarbonate, bullpup stock? This would be a low-risk project which would enable the army to retain most of the spare parts and training/cleaning regimes for their current rifle, thereby saving them some cost and inconvenience. Perhaps the opportunity could be taken to improve some aspects of the ergonomics, such as the poor location of the fire selector switch.”
LikeLike
jackstaff,
I think the idea of using SA80 carbines as a basis of a future PDW is a terrible one. It would be very heavy with a horrible weight balance. Forty years later, there really are newer and better designs that would be cheaper and more effective options.
Unlike Tony, I am not a fan of bullpup weapons. The extra barrel length is all very well, but introduces a range of ergonomic disadvantages. Clearing stoppages and changing magazines in the prone position are less speedy than with an AR15 design. The other important disadvantage is that the chamber is right next to the firer’s face. In the event of a breech explosion – something that could be caused by the need to fire a massive amount of ammunition – injury could easily be sustained. Having the ejection port closer to the ear is probably not a good thing either. In the final analysis, I guess it is a question of personal preference. As an ex-infantry soldier, I have always found the M16 and its clones infinitely superior to SA80.
LikeLike
@ Tony – I’m with you; basically modern (probably lighter, hopefully even more reliable) versions of the EM2 and TARDEN with the use of pictainary rails for sights, UGL’s, Shotguns, hand-grips, etc.
Also agree with the compact machine pistol. Now all we got to add to the section is a six-shot grenade launcher and/or rocket launcher (“Western” RPG?) but that’s a different thread…
LikeLike
Totally aside from the real topic
” HK replaced most of the mechanical parts in producing the A2 rebuild”
– total failure, recovered by sensible means
– same recipe with the army tactical radio: Total waste of money over 20 years, buy a working system from the US and call it the same (no one will notice; face saved)
LikeLike
Hi Monty,
RE “Unlike Tony, I am not a fan of bullpup weapons. ”
– as I keep saying I am not an expert in this in any way, but are there any other bullpups mass adopted except by 1. China (they are already changing their mind?), 2. France and 3. UK?
Talking about breech explosions, as a 10-yr old I didn’t use my grandfather’s Garand to liven up the re-enactments of El Alamein with model tanks (a mere .22 instead) as the ammunition was by then a quarter century old – do they actually happen with ammo straight out of factory?
LikeLike
The bullpup QBZ-95 is the standard assault rifle in use in China. They have a more recent conventional rifle in the same 5.8mm calibre, which seems to be for border guards.
Israel is in the process of adopting the IWI Tavor TAR-21 bullpup assault rifle, specifically designed to replace its M16 and M4 rifles. This matches their ergonomic control layout so soldiers can easily transition to them. The Tavor has also been adopted for all Indian special forces (army, navy and AF), and is gaining other sales elsewhere. It is probably the best of the modern breed of bullpups, lacking only an adjustable stock and instant ambidexerity (it can be switched from right hand to left hand use, but it takes a couple of minutes).
The FN F2000 bullpup has been adopted by several minor armies and special forces. It is fully ambidextrous (it uses a forward-eject system) but the control layout is odd and not at all intuitive.
Singapore has adopted the SAR-21 bullpup, which is interesting in featuring a kevlar cheek-piece which protects the firer’s face in the event of a breech explosion (some years ago there was a photo floating around the web which showed a blown-up SAR-21; the firer was uninjured).
Of the older generation of bullpups, France still uses their FAMAS (although having lost, like us, their small arms industry, they are going to have to replace it with something bought from elsewhere).
The Austrian Steyr AUG (very advanced for its time) was the most successful of the bullpups, being sold to nearly 30 different coutries including Australia and New Zealand – and even the Falkand Islands! With the benefit of hindsight, it’s a great pity we didn’t buy it too instead of the SA80, which is without much doubt the worst bullpup ever to enter service, even if it has proved very reliable following HK’s makeover.
I explore all of the arguments for and against bullpups, plus suggest various ways of meeting all of the objections, in my web article here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/bullpups.htm
LikeLike
Thanks Tony, that was thorough in itself!
Outside my original question, what happened to the Israeli Galil (=friend, a good name, even though it was an improved version over opposition’s AK47)? I know they rechambered it, in the name of ammo standardisation
LikeLike
The Galil never really took off in Israel, possibly because it is a lot heavier than an M4. They did sell the design to South Africa, though, where it’s still in service (and possibly other countries also).
Strictly speaking the Galil was based on the Finnish RK62 (IIRC) which was itself based on the AK.
LikeLike
Thanks Tony,
These two ” the Galil was based on the Finnish RK62 ” are generally considered the best AK47 derivatives – Galil trumps the other one as it has an inbuilt bottle opener (to save the sights for other use)
LikeLike
Magazine lips was the preferred bottle opener from what I had heard.
Also makes more sense than sights – I don’t see how the sights could be used as a conventional bottle opener.
LikeLike
@ Tony – Another excellent article. However, I think the SAR-21 has a diagonal ejection system? It is mentioned in the link below.
@ Jed – How about a Magpul with this calibre for your PDW?
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/magsub.html
LikeLike
Hi Gareth and TW,
Re “for your PDW” – isn’t the compactness and weight important? — The smallest Uzi and Jatimatic are both 1.5 kg
– Talking about sexy ones, HK MP7?
LikeLike
TW
Ref: “Then you have taken the wrong lesson from what I said, and are merely cherry-picking specific points out of context to support your view.”
Guilty perhaps, but not deliberately, honest……
Ref: “I believe that all of the gun-carrying infantry should have weapons capable of engaging the enemy at long range”
and I don’t believe that is the way to go, so we shall just have to agree to disagree on this one 🙂
LikeLike
ACC, I think that 1.5 kg is a reasonable (empty) limit for a PDW; twice as much as a pistol, half as much as a 5.56mm carbine. The B&T MP9 weighs in at 1.4 kg, the HK MP7 and the new STK CPW are both 1.5 kg.
Jed, what you are seem to want to do is revert to the original assault rifle concept as developed in Germany in WW2 with the Stg.44 optimised for short/medium ranges and the MG42 for long ranges. This was of course subsequently copied by the Russians with the AK+PK combo.
In the late 1940s the British set up an investigative panel to consider what the next small arms and ammunition should be in the light of six years of intensive combat experience, and they knew all about the Stg.44. After considering various options they concluded that the a general-purpose cartridge in a compact general-purpose rifle (the bullpup EM-2), backed up by a belt-fed LMG in the same 7×43 calibre, was the right solution.
I spend a lot of time discussing this issue with military and small-arms specialists in various countries and have never seen any coherent argument that the British got it wrong – in fact, the general consensus is that if the British had ignored the US and gone ahead with the adoption of the 7mm EM-2, we would probably still be using updated versions of both gun and ammo today.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine that anyone who has been in a real gunfight would want to be armed with an HK MP7.
The RCMP looked at these small PDWs & concluded they were no more lethal than the .22 Win Mag rimfire. Fine if you are attacked by suicide squirrels, but useless against a serious threat.
I would rather have a mini uzi type weapon in .357 SIG.
LikeLike
Hi JH,
I bet those guys who got butchered by a “colleague” having put their main weapon away while at rest, within the base, would disagree with you.
I’ll copy and paste some ballistics in an hour or two, re the .22 comment.
LikeLike
Hi JH,
The rest of my comment (ammo performance part sourced from the manufacturer, HK):
“.The British Military Police issues HK MP7A1 to its personnel since 2005, …
MP7A1 is designed to fire special, high velocity ammunition, 4.6x30mm, that looks like scaled down rifle round. That ammunition is unique to the MP7 and another HK weapon, the HK UCP / P46pistol…
the MP7 can be carried like any big pistol in the special holster, and can be effectively used in close combat.
The 4.6x30mm ammunition is loaded with pointed all-steel bullets with brass jacket… Manufacturer claims the 100% penetration of the CRISAT bodyarmor (1.6mm of Titanium plus 20 layers of Kevlar) at the distance of 200 meters.[Another source claims the same against a kevlar helmet, which I find harder to believe]
Other types of ammunition, including tracer, frangible, spoon-tip(rapid-tumbling for use against unarmored human targets), blank and trill(inert) also available for MP7A1; ammunition is currently manufactured in UK by BAE Systems / Radway Green plant.”
I had the MP7 as an ad-on to my original post exactly for the reason that it uses special ammunition, so having it in units that routinely use something else might not be such a good idea.
– but having it on (literally; holstered) folks that are normally close to the logistics train, and only use it in exceptional circumstances (as the name PDW implies) is a different story
LikeLike
It’s more likely for a bullet, especially an armour-piercing one, to defeat a helmet than a titanium plate backed up by kevlar.
Helmets are for stopping fragments.
LikeLike
Any small arm/ammo combination is a trade off between conflicting priorities: the need to minimise size, weight and recoil on the one hand; the desire to maximise effectiveness and range on the other.
The trade-offs are different for primary weapons like rifles (where effectiveness and range are most important) than they are for PDWs (which need to be carried constantly but will rarely if ever be used) when size and weight are more important.
The issue with PDW ammo is not how it compares with more powerful rounds, but how it compares with non-expanding 9mm ammo – which is what it is designed to replace. If the bullets yaw rapidly on impact, they are likely to create larger wound channels than 9mm ball which does not. Exactly how reliable their yaw performance is, I don’t know.
LikeLike
@ Tony W.
As the expert do you think (conventions and treaties to one side) if the UK switched to hollow point ammunition the front line would benefit?
Thinking about it the Taliban aren’t sending their casualties back to state of the art facilities. I should imagine for the vast majority there medical care is more late 19th century than early 21st century. So I should imagine many would die if not from their wounds but secondary infections. And if they were to recover I suppose a good portion would be disabled in some way……….
So if we were to use hollow point and kill them outright first go would we benefit?
(Then again is their morale factor there that even if you are shot you have a chance at survival so there is less to fear? Um. No. I don’t know. I will have to have a think.)
LikeLike
One attempt at combining range and stopping power as well as armour piecing was the Cyclone (or Ring Air foil) round; my favourite bit is the story of the Goat… (No Welsh Jokes!).
http://yarchive.net/gun/ammo/cyclone.html
LikeLike
Hi Mr. fred,
The three guys featured might beg to differ, RE” Helmets are [just?] for stopping fragments” as in http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/LatestHelmetSavesSoldiersLivesInAfghanistan.htm
– or am I just naively believing propaganda?
LikeLike
Helmets are for stopping fragments, but that doesn’t mean that they cannot ever stop a bullet.
All else being equal, a Helmet (pure ballistic composite) will be less efficient than body armour (hard strike face (titanium) backed up with ballistic composites) at stopping bullets.
LikeLike
Look an HK MP7 is better than being un armed, but if you are in the military/SWAT or similar, then there are far better weapons. How many shoot outs are with enemies wearing body armour? The MP7 was designed for a problem that mainly does not exist. For most close range shootouts, you are better off with the better pistol calibres such as .357 SIG, .40 S&W, .45 acp, or even the Soviet 7.62 WW2 Tokarev/Mauser round.
The way law & order is collapsing in the UK, there may be need to arm more police/security. For lesser risks, a semi auto in a small calibre might be politically acceptable.
For private security guards at Channel ports or arms factories, prison dog handlers on perimeter patrol, panda first response cars in rural areas or small towns, all might use a semi auto MP7 with magazine limited to 10 or 12 rounds.
I repeat the RCMP was not impressed with small PDWs.
LikeLike
John:
“I repeat the RCMP was not impressed with small PDWs.”
Well, for every example there’s usually a counter-example: the Norwegian Army recently adopted the MP7 to replace the MP5. It’s also been bought by eight other countries, including the UK for the MoD Police (where it replaces three different weapons: the MP5, L85 and Browning pistol).
The FN P90 has been bought by more than 40 countries, usually special military or police forces (including the US Secret Service, which guards the President).
LikeLike
x – hollow-points would certainly improve the reliability of the stopping power at short range since they would create much bigger wound channels. As the range lengthens and the velocity drops, so they will increasingly fail to expand.
Expanding bullets are designed to function within a certain range of velocities – any less and they don’t expand, any more and they explode on the surface and don’t penetrate enough.
LikeLike
The HK MP7 is a bureaucrats gun. Simple training with limited ammunition. They do not care if it works or not. Their lives do not depend on it. Simplifies their paperwork though.
LikeLike
@ Tony W
I think my question was ill founded. I understand what a hollow points does and the difference with a FMJ.
I think what I was driving at is if “we” killed them the first time “we” wouldn’t have to have another go.
So what you are saying then is that at the ranges we are on about 100-250ish meter there would be little difference in kill rates.
I suppose deer and game animals having more bone and muscle mass present a tougher target?
Sorry it was a silly question.
LikeLike
x – “So what you are saying then is that at the ranges we are on about 100-250ish meter there would be little difference in kill rates.”
No, I didn’t say that. My point is that a military bullet needs to be effective across a much wider range of distances than a hunting round normally does, and it is more difficult to design an expanding bullet which will work over a wide range of distances. Certainly an expanding bullet can be designed which is very effective against people in the 100-250m range bracket, but getting it to work properly at much longer distances may be more difficult. Maybe that doesn’t matter, but it’s just something to bear in mind.
John – the MP7 4.6mm has almost exactly the same performance as the P90 5.7mm (similar bullet weight and muzzle velocity, similar bias in favour of penetrating armour). Yet the P90 has been bought by specialist units like the Secret Service who can choose whatever they like, and who certainly expect that they may have to use their weapons – and that those weapons had better work.
From the point of view of practical experience I have read mixed opinions about the 5.7mm’s effectiveness, nothing as yet about the 4.6mm. I don’t find it difficult to believe that they could at least match the soft-target effectiveness of the 9mm ball round, though. I have personally witnessed gel tests being conducted on the 6.5mm CBJ and 9mm ball. Even the saboted CBJ bullet (just 4mm calibre) caused much more massive disruption in the gel block than the 9mm.
LikeLike
TW
“any more and they explode on the surface and don’t penetrate enough.”
I must admit this has piqued my curiosity, could you elaborate?
On the main topic, I think we’re at something of an impasse.
Either you think section support weapons are more important, or you think section rifles are important.
Unless the British Army is going to deploy two test battalions, theres not a great deal we can do to advance the arguement.
LikeLike
Dominic
If an expanding bullet like a hollow-point strikes at much greater than its designed impact velocity, it will expand so violently that it will be torn apart. This will create a nasty-looking surface wound, but means that the bullet will not penetrate very far – probably not far enough to damage vital organs. The general standard for expanding anti-personnel bullets (established through some unfortunate experiences of US police) is that they must penetrate at least 12 inches through a body to be reliably effective.
“Either you think section support weapons are more important, or you think section rifles are important.”
I don’t understand that: both are important. A long-range intermediate round will provide the rifle with much greater effectiveness than 5.56mm at any range, without the heavy recoil of 7.62mm. The same cartridge can also provide the support LMG with a long-range performance to match the 7.62mm, with a lot less ammo weight. Where’s the problem?
LikeLike
“will create a nasty-looking surface wound, but means that the bullet will not penetrate very far”
I was thinking the other way, lots of small penetrations right through, hence the confusion.
But yeah, nasty surface wound with little lasting effect makes sense.
Although I’ve got to ask, are you sure 12″ is right?
I’ve put on a fair few pounds, and I’m not 12″ through…
Although it does explain why your supposed to shoot deer in the chest not the head, which I always thought was fairly bizare…
“Where’s the problem?”
Not problem per se, indeed, it would be an improvement on what we have now.
I just think theres better things we could “buy” with the weight carried by a section.
Be that simply extra ammo for the few long range weapons, better long range weapons, extra long range weapons (not 8 though :p), or some groovey sensor kit.
At its most basic, an up calibred PDW would save you 2kg per weapon over the current system.
Whilst discussing CAS a while back, I suggested that, you could bodge together a laser range finder, a GPS and a compass, and you can in effect do away with forward positioned ground controllers. Perhaps even just a proper laser designator.
Rather than a 5 minute conversation describing in intimate detail the appearance of the building you want bombing, you can either point your el cheapo designator at it that says, “I’m at coordinates abc, xyz, the target is 250m away at 092 degrees, therefore the target is at coordinates def, uvw” which the squaddie can shout down the radio and have bombed, or you merely point a proper designator at the target and say “bomb that”.
Do they make laser guided 105 shells?
Could they?
Even if they dont, an accurate timely grid reference has to be helpful for none line of sight fireing.
Surely that makes that bloke a “better” section member to have, than a rifleman.
Obviously pursuant on having support fires in the area.
A 120mm mortar can project 7km, how often do patrols venture further than 7km from a platoon house?
The Light Gun can go all the way out the 17km, 20 with new extended range shells.
Obviously, both require a crew, so its not exactly apples and apples to compare them with a long rifle, buts its another way of thinking.
LikeLike
John H – ref RCMP and HK MP7
Do you mean the RMP as in the British Army Royal Military Police?
Or do you mean Canada’s RCMP – the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada’s federal police force ? Because I don’t think the RCMP use the MP 7 ???
LikeLike
Jed
Royal Canadian Police.
They may not use it, but they like to test everything.
The MP7 & P90 are fad guns. One controversial gunfight gone wrong & they will be in the surplus box going cheap.
Managers like them as they meet human rights regulations, which is more important to them than giving the troops an effective weapon.
LikeLike
I think MP7 has been in use too long to be called a fad.
What actually amazes me in these safety conscious days is that police don’t carry machine pistols/carbines more as pistol shooting skills degrade a lot more quickly than rifle shooting skills. Better a shot hitting home than collateral damage. I don’t see comfort or weight being a real issue.
LikeLike
John – OK ta, live and learn, never saw anything about RCMP testing it. You do know UK Royal Military Poice carry it too ?
LikeLike
Some of you love the MP7 & P90.
You have probably guessed I am not a fan.
Time will tell.
A repeat of the 5.56.
Ooh something new & shiny, lets join the herd & get some.
Then decades of regret, stuck with something useless.
LikeLike
@ John H
All swings and roundabouts.
I think MP7 makes more sense in 40S&W.
H&K kit is super stuff.
LikeLike
Dominic, not all people are shot while upright and facing the shooter – some are lying down. Some may be upright but the bullet passes through an arm first. 12 inches was determined by US police forces as the penetration requirement taking into account all such circumstances.
For those who believe that bigger is better, the B&T MP9 has been developed in .45 Auto calibre. I found it quite controllable in burst fire in 9mm and 6.5 CBJ, but I’m not sure about .45….
LikeLike
If you want a .45 smg how about this;
LikeLike
PS to my last message: in the US they do have an issue with obesity…there is one notorious case when a 300 lb criminal was shot five times in the body at point-blank range with a .357 Magnum firing fast-expanding hollow-points. He not only survived, he got up again and killed the police officer who had shot him. The bullets couldn’t penetrate deep enough.
LikeLike
TW
I would have hoped most people shot by the police were shot front and centre….
LikeLike
The optimum load for .357 is 125gr jhp clocling out the muzzle at about 1400fps. If memory serves this gave a one shot stop 90% of the time. In 9mm Parabellum some of the 180gr+ Hydropoint +P+ manage about 95% one shot stops.
LikeLike
I would probably love the MP7 & P90 , if they came in .357 SIG or even 7.62 Mauser/Tokarev.
The .357 JHP 125 grain was THE police stopping power bullet of the early 1980s, but effectiveness varied from brand to brand. Still got the comparison buried in the house somewhere.
People running around in a gun fight are likely to be ducking & twisting, so you may not get the classic front chest hit.
LikeLike
It was a 125 grain JHP being used in the .357 Magnum which failed to stop the 300 lb felon – five times! Modern law-enforcement JHPs tend to use heavier bullets for more reliable penetration.
The problem with the .357 SIG for a PDW is that the round is designed to work with expanding bullets (which it does very well). If limited to military FMJs, terminal effectiveness is not likely to be much greater than 9mm, although the trajectory will be a bit flatter. Recoil control would probably be an issue in burst fire from a light machine pistol, though.
LikeLike
Just a thought.
Is GC valid in the Afghan Theatre?
The Taliban are using biological warfare, after a fashion.
(AP IED’s are sometimes given an extra load of poo, to give any soldiers hit a decent chacne of sepsis)
LikeLike
The Hague Convention of 1899, which was the one which specifically banned expanding bullets, only applies in warfare between the signatory nations. So strictly speaking it doesn’t apply in counter-insurgency operations. However, no armies have ever adopted different ammo for dealing with insurgents from that which they use against other armies (except maybe special forces).
(Digression – I am reminded of the Puckle Gun, an early attempt at a machine gun, which was offered in versions firing spherical bullets against Christians and cubical ones against the rest…).
The Geneva Conventions are much more generally worded and can be taken to cover just about anything, as far as I’m aware. A lawyer’s delight…
LikeLike
I remember watching a program on one of the documentary channels in which an arms expert said the British Government wanted an Empire opt-out of the unnecessary infliction of pain clause; they agreed to a “just poke holes” rule for Europeans but wanted to continue using Dumm-Dumm’s against the “Lesser Races” as they put it. Didn’t get their way. Starter for ten: how did Dumm-Dumm’s get their name?
LikeLike
Actual it’s Dum Dum, the name of the arsenal in India where this ammunition was developed and produced. It was officially known as the “CARTRIDGE SA BALL .303 inch CORDITE MARK II, SPECIAL” and was basically the MK II (which had a heavy, round-nosed full-jacket bullet) with the jacket cut short of the nose to leave the lead core exposed. This enabled the bullet to expand on impact, thereby producing more satisfactory results (for the shooter, not the target).
Further trials in England led to the adoption of a jacketed hollow-point bullet in three versions (MARKs III, IV and V) before the Hague Convention forced them to revert to the full-jacket MK VI.
In the meantime, troops with the MK II bullets sometimes created their own “Dum Dums” unofficially, by filing down the tip of the bullet. This has led to the term being used for any military bullet modified by troops to expand on impact, and the popular press (in their infinite wisdom and knowledge about all matters pertaining to firearms) tend to use it for any and all expanding bullets.
LikeLike
GJ
It was an arsenal in india under the Rahj that started making flat nosed lead bullets in mid to late victorian times.
Some say because of their destructive effect, others because it was just cheaper and easier to extrude a lead cylinder and chop it of at the right length.
Do I win a watch?
LikeLike
TW
I ain’t gonna cross swords with TW on ammunition history lightly.
I think Dum Dum was making pistol ammo like that before the 303, also for the .455 rifle used before the 303 was it not?
LikeLike
I knew it was an Indian Armoury at a place called dum dum.
“they agreed to a “just poke holes” rule for Europeans but wanted to continue using Dumm-Dumm’s against the “Lesser Races” as they put it. Didn’t get their way.”
Tell that to Brazillian Plumbers….
LikeLike
@ Tony Williams
Um. There are a lot of fat Americans aren’t there? Makes me wonder how Federal thought .327 was a good project.
This device intrigues me……
http://www.kriss-tdi.com/products/kriss-smg-45-acp.html
LikeLike
Yes it intrigues me too…
LikeLike
Re the Kriss: they used to claim that it was virtually recoilles until people like me pointed out that that would violate Newton’s Third Law, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Now I notice that their website says:
“With all due respect to Sir newton, the KRISS engineers have been able to use his law to the shooter’s advantage.
Unlike any other firearm ever invented, instead of having all the recoil force slam back into the shooter’s shoulder, causing massive amounts of felt recoil and resultant muzzle climb, the KRISS System absorbs and redirects these forces downward and away from the operator thus enabling him to better control and keep the KRISS firearm on-target.”
Sorry, that still doesn’t happen. If the bullet goes one way, the gun goes the opposite way with equal force. Various mechanisms can spread out the recoil force so that it delivers more of a constant push than a series of sharp kicks (and is therefore more controllable), but the total recoil force remains the same.
The other factor helping the controllability of the Kriss is that the barrel axis is down in the middle of the hand instead of above it, so you don’t get the rotational force which usually causes the muzzle to rise in automatic fire.
So; controllable it is, eliminating recoil it doesn’t.
LikeLike
@ IXION
“I think Dum Dum was making pistol ammo like that before the 303, also for the .455 rifle used before the 303 was it not?”
Strictly speaking, the Dum Dum bullet is a jacketed bullet which is missing the jacket from the tip. The old, large-calibre black-powder rounds used before the .303 came along were never jacketed at all (at least, not until the 20th century) – they were just plain lead alloy.
LikeLike
@ Tony W
And of course the barrel is also in line with the hand/wrist/arm which also dampens recoil. As opposed to the barrel being above the hand turning the wrist into a pivot. So I don’t think it works as they say by diverting away force more by directing towards the mass of the body.
Still think they are clever.
LikeLike
Sorry TW. Missed your last paragraph. Doing too many things at once…..
LikeLike
@ Tony and IXION – you both get 10 points – I’m a generous bloke… 🙂
RE: the Kriss, every time I see it I keep imagining it as part of a “combi” weapon, it “built-in” to the furniture of a bullpup weapon. It would share the handle/trigger of the larger weapon, with a selector switch to choose between the two.
LikeLike
RE KRISS
Can I stick my oar in and say ‘Im not that impressed’
From the video’s it clearly does recoil.
Much of the ‘reduction’ is I suspect due to the shear weight of the thing.
And boy does it look complicated.
Tw is (as ever) right Newton cannot be overriden.
Rather like my personal favorite firearm ever the super sexy Panco Jackhammer shotgun, it looks like an answer to a question no one bothered asking.
LikeLike
@ IXION – what about combining the Kriss and the Jackhammer? CQB overkill?
LikeLike
Rumours are flying around concerning the US “trade study” of different small-arms calibres mentioned by General Brogan in my hearing at the NDIA in Dallas last May. The US Army’s ARDEC has completed this, comparing the 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds with 6.5mm and 7mm over a wide range of criteria, assuming the use of similar lead-free bullets. The conclusion is that both the 6.5mm and 7mm were much better overall than either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm. The report has yet to be released, but the rumours seem pretty definite.
This should come as no surprise; the abstract of Ehrhart’s 2009 study (Increasing small arms lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the infantry half-kilometer) contains this:
“The 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics – Integrated Product Team discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between 6.5 and 7-mm. This was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of World War I.”
How many more studies will it take, I wonder, before the US and/or NATO actually does something about this?
LikeLike
“over a wide range of criteria”
But thats the problem…..
Your fixing the contest….
5.56 and 7.72 are specialist rounds, anything designed to be a compromise between the two will be better when given a compromise test….
LikeLike
Exactly.
5.56mm is a specialised short-range round, so specialised that its barrier penetration is poor and its terminal effectiveness unreliable even at short range. So why are we using it?
7.62mm is a specialised long-range round, and while it is also very effective at short range its users pay the penalty in weight and recoil.
Give me a non-specialised round which performs very well across the whole range band, without excessive weight and recoil, any day.
LikeLike
Hi Tony, it will be a great day when they get the calibre debate sorted and get them on the battlefield. My only concern is what weapon(s) will they be fired from. It wouldn’t suprise me if some bright spark suggested we go for an L85A3 in 6.8mm or whatever the round will be.
I’m sure it will be the same for US forces, will they be stuck with the same weapons, just in a different calibre or will the government be willing to invest in a whole new weapons system?
I think the jury’s still out in that respect, although my fingers are well and truly crossed in hope of light, very accurate and highly reliable weapons for our troops.
LikeLike
Richard, the answer to your question all depends on the success (or otherwise) of the US Army’s LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technologies) programme. The current development programme focuses on plastic-cased telescoped ammunition used in a light machine gun, of 5.56mm calibre to make direct comparisons with existing equipment. The LSAT team are due to supply eight LMGs and 100,000 rounds of ammo to the Army in May for initial evaluation. They have also made a carbine firing the same ammo.
If the trials are successful, the LSAT team would like to make a production system in an intermediate calibre like 6.5mm, but that depends on the Army. LSAT guns and ammo are radically different from existing technology, so existing guns could not be converted to use them. They are showing a 40% weight reduction over conventional weapons and ammo, which means that a long-range 6.5mm could be adopted with no weight increase over current 5.56mm systems.
On the other hand, if LSAT fails to be adopted it’s an open question as to what happens next: whether a new conventional 6.5-7mm round is adopted, or whether the military just sticks to what it has.
Either way, you needn’t worry about the SA80 family being adapted to a new round. It’s too unpopular – and too clapped out with all the use the guns are getting – for anyone to seriously contemplate that.
LikeLike
“Give me a non-specialised round which performs very well across the whole range band, without excessive weight and recoil, any day”
The whole range band?
Who gets to decide that?
Excessive weight, recoil, these are very subjective terms, up there with “stopping power”.
That a bullet designed for general purpose use passed a general purpose test doesnt really tell us anything, or it shouldnt anyway.
The point of contention was the test is meaningless.
It was designed to prove a point, not to inform one.
It doesnt prove that an indeterminate round beats two specialist rounds.
LikeLike
@Dominic:
“It was designed to prove a point, not to inform one.”
Very unlikely – the US Army is the strongest supporter of the 5.56mm calibre, in fact it seems they were rather embarrassed by the result of the research and the awkward questions which have followed it.
“It doesnt prove that an indeterminate round beats two specialist rounds.”
I presume you meant to write “intermediate” 🙂
Yes, it does prove exactly that.
The 6.5/7mm rounds beat the 5.56mm by being more effective at any range (with their advantage increasing as the range extends) by such a margin that their relatively minor additional weight and recoil were judged to be well worth while.
The 6.5/7mm rounds beat the 7.62mm by matching its long-range performance with significantly less weight and recoil.
That’s comparing round for round, on an individual basis. It takes no account of the additional cost, training and tactical benefits of using only one calibre, in one suite of weapons, which equips soldiers to deal with combat at 0-1,000 metres ranges (and anything in between).
With the present two-calibre system, if half the troops are carrying 5.56mm weapons they will be unable to contribute to a long-range fire-fight, whereas the other half carrying 7.62mm weapons will be poorly equipped to deal with urban fighting. Since any given patrol may involve both scenarios, that’s a significant cost to the troops’ overall firepower.
LikeLike
This debate simply isn’t about using a single calibre. Besides 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm, the British Army already uses three other additional calibre types at section and platoon level: 9 mm, 8.59 mm, 12.7 mm. They also have 40 mm grenade launchers which fire large cumbersome rounds. We need to reduce ammunition types as well as weight.
If a new calibre, say 6.5 mm were able to replace both 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm, we could adopt a .338 (8.59 mm) machine gun in a modified FN MAG / GPMG design. This would be much heavier than existing GPMGS in 7.62 mm, but you’d effectively have a portable .50 (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun. You’d be able to use HE and AP rounds with a much greater target effect. You would probably want to use such a weapon for operations on foot, but rather mounted on a tripod and in vehicles; however, if you needed to carry it, you could.
This isn’t a ridiculous suggestion; we’re already evaluating .338 semi-automatic rifles, which would provide a worthwhile increase to section firepower. So, what we’re really proposing is 6.5 mm to replace 5.56 mm and .338 to replace 7.62 mm. Most of the time you won’t need the extreme range ability of .338 weapons, and 6.5 mm will be able enough.
Finally, if we must retain 7.62 mm for whatever reason, 5.56 mm is simply too small to incapacitate quickly and reliably every time or to reach beyond 300 metres. That remains the most important thing to bear in mind.
LikeLike
I agree with “This debate simply isn’t about using a single calibre”
– and next, I’ll have to make excuses about “small calibre”; it is all about effects, isn’t it
Namely, the American self-ranging, serial fire airburst individual weapon just went into proper production; ducking behind a wall, around a corner… good luck from now on!
LikeLike
What about combining grenades and shotgun ammo? No, seriously. The new American ammo is 25mm and the Russians have a 23mm shotgun; we could go for a two size propellent (LV and HV)for personal and GMG use?
LikeLike
Gareth, there are HE shotgun rounds available now.
The problem is that HE requires a fuze which remains much the same size (and cost) regardless of calibre. Which means that the smaller the round (and a 12 gauge shotgun is only 18mm calibre), the bigger the percentage of the projectile occupied by the fuze, and the less “bang for the buck”.
The high-precision time fuzes needed for airburst HE, as used in the XM25, are many times more expensive than simple impact fuzes.
The jury is still out on whether the XM25 grenade is big enough to get the job done.
LikeLike
Wonder if you can get HE 10 gauge shotgun rounds?
LikeLike
I can safely say no: HE rounds are strictly military and no military uses 10 gauge that I’ve heard of.
LikeLike
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS-23
As the barrels are rejected cannon ones, they could fire explosive rounds. Obviously not with the force/velocity of a cannon.
Would it be too much of a stretch to produce a shot round for the OICW? Or produce a revolver grenade launcher in 25mm? The payload rifle is supposed to fire “dumb” 25mm rounds.
LikeLike
The XM25 does have a shot load developed for it.
LikeLike
@ Tony – thanks for the information.
LikeLike
The 10 gauge magnum became popular with US police after a news crew caught on film a felons car being stopped by a trooper with a 10 gauge.
LikeLike
looking at combat now,is it not time get rid of not arming soilders with hollow points,law bout 80years out date i mean useing body bombs,drugs so dnt feel pain give our guys a chance,ok not in brit army time change as combat has shown we need weapons to hit 550metres,time change sa80 was rubbish now its good but we useing million rounds a mouth ,we going wait til knackerd and cnt shot ,we all now that not mater what testing gets done g36 prob be picked as some guy get nice brown packet and wink to swing it dnt we,
The fn scar,or steyr aug or barret 7 ,ok ak would be choice but mosty due cost and will work, in 6.8, firstdo away with 8man teams to 14 man teams,2 minis both with short and long barrals and mag port removed,1gpmg,and mini in 7.62, 2rifle men with 6shot 40mm and other with 25mm rile both have fns,6 fn scars ,4 with ubgl,and 2 marksmen weapons the fn scar with 16inch or 19 with shoot out 600metres, also mp7 should be used by mini and gpmg as back and i know people say why etc well ther is new ammo out a two part round v good and works also may could be used as cqb weapon ,also 2 shotguns ,now this would give soilders a good chance in field ,
Also cost not all army needs replace sa80 only front line units ,drivers ,cooks etc could still use it like israil does with m16 and tavour but untill we get mp with balls says and make changes or soilders will strugle
LikeLike
I don’t mean to be rude and perhaps English isn’t your first language but you have some interesting points that are hard to decipher because you haven’t used proper punctuation. It makes it hard to understand what you’re saying even if you typed perfect English.
LikeLike