We have discussed small arms calibres, dismounted close combat and soldier burdens a couple of times and one of the issues that seems to be receiving a great deal of interest is, regardless of calibre, reducing the weight of ammunition. Everything from lightweight materials and modifying the design of the bullet have been tried but one that shows much promise is cased telescoping and plastic cased rounds.
Caseless ammunition has been subject to a lot of research but the fundamental role of the case in removing heat from the weapon never seems to have been properly resolved.
Will lightweight case designs and telescoped cases offer a meaningful weight reduction without impacting reliability and performance?
An interesting video update
Textron Systems’ Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun Performs Well During U.S. Army Military Utility Assessment.
Weapon System’s Weight, Ergonomics and Handling Advantages Showcased during Three-Week Evaluation at Fort Benning.
HUNT VALLEY, Md. – October 10, 2011 -Textron Systems Advanced Systems, an operating unit of Textron Systems, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today that its U.S. Army Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) program team has successfully completed a critical Military Utility Assessment (MUA) of its cased telescoped light machine gun (CT LMG).
The evaluation took place at the Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Benning, Ga. during a three-week period in September. The MUA, employing soldiers from military police and infantry battalions and a Ranger regiment, fired 25,000 rounds using eight CT LMGs. Evaluators assessed the weapon’s performance in numerous categories-in a side by side comparison to the Army’s M249 Squad Automatic Weapon-to determine if the LSAT weapon system is suitable for the full spectrum of automatic rifleman tasks.
“Initial feedback from the MUA was extremely positive,” said Kori Phillips, the LSAT Project Officer from the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC). “The cased telescoped ammunition and weapon together are 40 percent lighter than the M249 when carrying 1,000 linked rounds, which equates to more than 20 lbs. That makes a big difference to the warfighter-in terms of mobility, weapon ergonomics and logistics.”
LSAT is a technology based program managed through the Joint Service Small Arms Program Office (JSSAP), located at ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. Textron Systems’ AAI Corporation is the prime contractor and systems integrator for a team of six additional companies who contribute to the LSAT program.
The cased telescoped light machine gun is a gas-operated, air-cooled, belt feed selectable semi-automatic and fully automatic weapon that fires from the open-bolt position. Its rate of fire is approximately 650 rounds per minute.
Soldiers at Fort Benning tested the CT LMG’s performance across a variety of automatic rifleman tasks and operational scenarios to assess whether it affects their ability to effectively engage targets. The weapon also was evaluated on its suitability in other areas including portability, safety, compatibility with soldier equipment, durability in challenging operational environments, ease of use, and its impact on soldier mobility.
“Our Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun really proved itself in the variety of environments and live-fire situations during the MUA,” said Textron Systems Program Manager Paul Shipley. “Soldiers experienced firsthand the benefits of this weapon and the significant advances our project team has made in weight reduction, handling, controllability and other factors during the past seven years.”
Additional CT LMG tests are in the planning stage with U.S. Army Special Operations Command while the Army determines a written requirement for lightweight weapons.
Times might be mature for this advancement, finally. It promises a lot, and the US trials will be something to keep under watch. It has a lot of potential.
I suspect some US SOCOM units will be deploying with some in the next couple of years.
A few points about the video:
1. It was a PR exercise designed to attract funding for the next stage of development. As things stand, further funding for LSAT has been withdrawn by the US DoD. The US Army has issued no requirement for a lightweight 5.56 mm machine gun. it has other priorities.
2. The video suggests that LSAT technology is now mature and ready for fielding. This is misleading. The caseless variety (CLA) of this ammunition type still doesn’t work – I believe that it has been agreed to stop development and to focus on the case-telescoped variety (CTA).
3. Compared to the Remington’s ACR, HK416 and the FN SCAR, the overall amount of ammunition fired through LSAT development prototypeS to date is insignificant and cannot possibly provide sufficient or meaningful data in terms of an adoption decision or date. The video reports that a total of 25,000 test rounds were fired in the late 2011 tests. A single HK M27 IAR had 75,000 rounds fired through it during a US Marines test. i believe the total amount of ammunition used to validate the M27 was more than 1 million rounds and that’s for a system based on the existing M4/ M16 design.
4. There are a number of technical issues that need to be ironed out. In particular, it isn’t clear how the LSAT mechanism will preserve the integrity of breech closure and sealing after repeated use. Effective breech obturation is fundamental to the viability of the LSAT concept. By adopting a rotating breech, the breech itself becomes a substitute for a metal case. Inevitable heat build-up and expansion is likely to affect reliability and longevity of the system.
5. In order to overcome technical issues, LSAT weapon design is more complex mechanically than the legacy systems it is intended to replace. Moreover, the extra weight of the Minimi M249 LMG versus LSAT has nothing to do with the ammunition type used, but is imply to ensure the longevity and reliability of the weapon itself.
Is case telescoped ammunition a good idea? Yes, of course it is. But it needs substantial investment by the US DoD to bring it to the stage where it is ready to field. A key question is are there other better future alternatives to LSAT?
An increasingly attractive option is plastic-cased conventional ammunition, which can also reduce cartridge weight by 30%. This is maturing very well and could be ready for fielding as early as 2014.
Part of the required investment to field LSAT will require a complete retooling of the US Government’s Lake City Arsenal (which currently manufactures brass cased ammunition). Indeed the required infrastructure change is so massive that an analysis of the benefits versus the costs and risks may well lead to LSAT’s demise. This is what has denied it further funding at this time.
One immensely important aspect of LSAT is that a new type of weapon requiring new manufacturing resources provides an ideal opportunity to revisit the choice of calibre. The increased re-adoption of 7.62 mm weapons (including a new lightweight 7.62 mm machine gun for the British Army chosen since we last discussed this topic) across NATO has set-up a future discussion.
When it comes to saving small arms ammunition weight, it is important to remember that a significant weight element is the bullet itself. A 5.56 mm round weighs 4 grams while a 7.62 mm one weights 10.5 grams. A 5.56 mm cartridge weighs 12 grams in total and a 7.62 mm cartridge weighs 24 grams. LSAT will reduce the weight to around 8 grams for 5.56 mm.
The real issue concerning small arms ammunition weight reduction, however, is not the weight of 5.56 mm ammunition but that of linked 7.62 mm ammunition. In essence then, LSAT solves the wrong problem, but if the technology is scalable, as claimed, then it could be used to develop a lightweight 7.62 mm round. You would still have the problem of excessive recoil and, in fact, total felt recoil would only increase in a lighter weapon.
When it comes to replacing SA80, the Royal Marines have said that they would like a new medium calibre round. Given that this seems to be an unlikely future option, they would prefer the wholesale re-adoption of 7.62 mm rather than to retain 5.56 mm.
In terms of future small arms, I believe that calibre selection insofar as it provides the required range and lethality still trumps weight reduction. This is also the US view. In summary then, LSAT is interesting but we need to get the calibre right first. Believe me when I say efforts to do just this are ongoing.
Thanks Monty, was hoping you would pop by and comment
Cheers
Monty
Putting aside for a moment the wrong calibre, and the limited nature of the tests.
One assumes theres little reason a 7.62mm GMPG cant be built on the same basic principles, is there?
@DominicJ
There is no question that 7.62 mm is a proven calibre, so your suggestion that it be used for LSAT is a good one. It would certainly save weight. The problem is that the 7.62 mm bullet design is very inefficient, which means it loses energy and velocity relatively quickly. So I think simply packaging 7.62 mm in a smaller cartridge is a bit pointless when you could so easily do more.
If you designed a slightly smaller round, (say 6.5-6.8 mm round weighing 7-8 grams) with a better ballistic coefficient (as the UK did in 1949 and again in the 1970s), you would have a smaller, lighter cartridge with a bullet that more than matched the performance, retained energy and terminal effectiveness of 7.62 mm at longer ranges.
A medium calibre LSAT round would probably weigh 12 grams versus a brass 7.62 mm round at 24 grams. An LSAT 7.62 mm round would weigh 18 grams. Why not go the whole hog and reduce weight by 50% instead of just 30%?
Monty
“The problem is that the 7.62 mm bullet design is very inefficient”
Could you expand on this? Or suggest some extra reading? (preferably on the net, I was hit with £5k of unplanned expenditure just after new year so my book budget is gone)
Its quite possibly just my ignorance, but when I say 7.62mm, I’m talking a general barrel diameter rather than a specific bullet design.
If I’m as wrong in this as I’m starting to think, couldnt we just redesign the 7.62 bullet?
Or is there some reason a bullet that size has to be that design?
http://www.g2mil.com/aluminum-ammo.htm
http://world.guns.ru/assault/brit/enfield-em-2-e.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/em2.html
DominicJ,
Read Tony William’s excellent book on Assault Rifles or alternatively check out his blog; it is full of interesting insights on this very topic. He also co-authored a piece on ‘The Case for an Intermediate Calibre’ which you can download for free from his website.
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm
To answer your question as simply as I can, a basic rule of physics and ballistics is long thin bullets travel much further short fat ones. The ratio of a bullet’s length versus its diameter describes its ballistic coefficient and the higher the coefficient (> .400) the further it will go for a given amount of propellant behind it.
The 7.62 mm round I was referring to was the NATO M80 7.62 mm Ball. This is the standard round in that calibre, although obviously the Russians have their 7.62 mm x 39 mm (used in the AK47) and the 7.62 mm x 54R (used in the SVD and PKM).
If you made the 7.62 mm longer, to improve its efficiency, you would probably increase its weight and thus the recoil – which is already to severe. Firing controlled automatic bursts with 7.62 mm weapons that weigh less than 5 kg is difficult for this reason.
monty
figured it was gonna be something like that.
I still owe james a donation for a logistics book, but it’ll be my next buy after that
The LSAT was given a 5.56 mm calibre so as to be a direct comparison to existing 5.56mm. I believe Tony Williams commented on a similar topic on this blog saying that once LSAT was deemed successful, an intermediate calibre would then be selected.
The UK of course has aspirations to replace SA-80 around 2020. My understanding is that for the British the issue is one of balancing three factors:
1. Reduced weight – LSAT is the currently technology favoured by the UK.
2. Logistic compatibility with the USA (and by implication NATO).
3. A larger intermediate calibre giving greater range and terminal kinetics.
Unfortunately it is questionable whether all three are achievable unless the US moves away from its apparent determination to retain a small calibre like 5.56 mm in any future LSAT weapon. The UK will be seeking to make its own ammunition, but the weapon will almost certainly be an off the shelf purchase. If LSAT wins a future US-NATO standardisation competition, is it possible the US will seek to protect its intellectual property rights and its commercial advantage by refusing to let FN, H&K, SiG, Beretta etc manufacture weapons fitted with this proprietary ammunition? What happens if you can only get an LSAT ammunition licence by agreeing to purchase or licence build suitable US weapons? Does anyone have any views on the legal issues that may emerge?
Hello Fatman, not seen you post here for a while, welcome back.
Interesting point on the legal and commercial issues, I expect there would be some problem with having a standard based on licenced proprietary technology.
The aspect of this I find most interesting is how the system removes heat from the weapon, or does it not, does it dissipate it by some other means?
Time to crack open the small arms debate again?
It’s coincedental perhaps that I’m just diving into one of my Christmas books, Erwin Rommels old “Infantry Attacks”. Describing the early actions in France during WW1 he mentions a lot of the short range meeting engagements etc at less than 300 yards (and more commonly >150 yards) which came to characterise WW2, Vietnam and many other theatres.
I wonder what our ex-service contributors would feel about a more short ranged service weapon?
Chris.B.
I don’t think that they’d be too keen, being as the 5.56mm is the result of going down that route and they are currently fighting in conditions that mean that typical engagement ranges are higher than 300m, which has lead to a resurgence in 7.62mm weapons.
“I wonder what our ex-service contributors would feel about a more short ranged service weapon?”
More short ranged than now? Completely pointless in Afghan, the point man got a combat shot gun if we were moving through close terrain.
Our engagements, and I suspect most places except the open desert are the same, were at the whole spectrum, from 800 metres out to “too fucking close” and the patrols were equipped with a variety of weapon systems to deal with them which I think is the correct way to go. Combat shot gun and rifle on auto for close in work, rifle on semi for further out along with LMG and UGL and then further out Sharpshooter rifle and GPMG and then further out the snipers and mortars.
In a general war I think 5.56 is perfectly adequate supplemented by 7.62 GPMG or LMGs. Riflemen in a more conventional conflict will expend most of their ammo suppressing the enemy rather than shooting directly at him, and it takes a long time to worm your way toward an enemy position to winkle him out with bayonet and grenade, and so you need lots of ammunition.
Really in a general war the infantryman’s rifle is more of a personal protective measure and suppressing weapon with the GPMG doing the donkeys work – a very Wehrmacht notion I know.
A general purpose cartridge, as proposed elsewhere (everywhere where such things are discussed), for both rifle and MG would seem to me to be the best technical solution.
MGs go back to being General Purpose, filling sustained fire or light roles depending on the particular fit (bipods, tripods, barrels, sights, stocks, ammo feed) on a common receiver.
One rifle for everyone else, with variation allowable by switching barrels, sights and rail attachments.
Simple to use, flexible and adaptable to the operational environment.
I suspect what is really needed here is a fundamental jump forward in the whole approach to small arms. Of course more can always be done to reduce weight, improve range and terminal effects, enhance reliability, etc, but what is really required is some way of allowing the infantryman to:
1. Acquire difficult-to-see targets, partially or even totally concealed, in both rural and urban environments.
2. Achieve a precise single shot kill capability against point targets, with the necessary range and kinetic impact, despite the fact that the firer may be shaking or panting. This suggest the need for some kind of compensation system to allow for inherent inaccuracies during the firing place, on the lines of having a sight that can even track moving point targets and give a very high hit probability.
3. Switch to an effective local area effect to destroy a group target. Killing the first individual, but just scattering the others is not enough. Some type of accurate horizontal cone is required – current weapons are often too random in their spread.
4. Switch again to a wider area suppressive effect, capable of allowing a single firer to pin down a significant number of enemy forces during an assault, or denying area access. This implies a much more random spread in fall of shot, perhaps with enhanced noise effects to increase enemy reluctance to return fire.
LSAT may be a move in the right direction, but I do wonder if a more imaginative re-engineering of the problem is really needed. Whether these objectives are achievable at the moment must remain questionable, but they might be reasonable aspirations for say the 2030s.
Does your average infantryman need to do half of that stuff? His mission in the main will either be suppression or moving toward and assaulting the main enemy position.
An accurate assault rifle with decent optics and CQB sight seems to do what the infantryman needs to do. He is afterall not an individual but part of a team, a team which has supplementary weapons to engage longer ranged targets and provide either more saturation fire or more precision fire.
I don’t see why the average infantryman needs to be able to do everything.
Special Forces where there is more training investment and more scope to operate at an individual or much smaller team level is another matter but for your average Tom, Digger, Grunt he just needs a thing that can go bang a lot and if need be accurately.
This isn’t Starship Troopers (the book, not the awful yet fun film).
In addition:
“1. Acquire difficult-to-see targets, partially or even totally concealed, in both rural and urban environments.”
For this he has his Mark 1 eyeball, cheap if difficult to repair. I’m not sure how one aquires a totally concealed target by definition, you can’t. And there are other platforms that can accomplish this that the PBI don’t have to lug around or bin half way through the operation because it’s broken. The target indication can then be done verbally, a reliable communications method, especially when done over a cheap radio.
“2. Achieve a precise single shot kill capability against point targets, with the necessary range and kinetic impact, despite the fact that the firer may be shaking or panting.”
The compensation system is the application of the Marksmanship principles – the firer can compensate for all those things by applying them without the need for technology. It becomes instinctive and will only fail when the firer fails (ie shot or blown up).
“3. Switch to an effective local area effect to destroy a group target”
Achieved by having a marksman with a weapon system optimised for that role. You are after all working as part of a team.
Ditto point 4.
None of your problems needs a technological solution in the slightest except problem one and there’s no reason why it has to be the infantryman’s job to acquire every target on his own when he will be operating in a complex combined arms environment with a multitude of other sensors.
KISS!!
PPS!
When all the electro-gizmos become as reliable and robust as the machined metal the assault rifles of today are made of (or plastic) and weigh little or no more as they do now, and require no or little additional training and logistical support then this gadgetry will be useful, until then it burdens the soldier with additional loads and concerns that are more than compensated for by unsexy, extremely tried and tested methods.
Hi Phil,
V much agree with your punchline in this ” He is afterall not an individual but part of a team, a team which has supplementary weapons to engage longer ranged targets and provide either more saturation fire or more precision fire.
I don’t see why the average infantryman needs to be able to do everything.”
But as 8 take one away or add max 4 (not six, as in the USMC for special circumstances)seems to be the number that most militaries have settled for in having a “nucleus” unit in the heat of the battle that can still be coordinated and be mutually supporting – even when all comms have been lost – what is it exactly they have today in the way of supporting weapons to hit all the “missions” that Fatman put on the table?
- I don’t think that he meant an individual, at one point in time would try to do all of those things, just that there would be enough interchangeability in the weapon, sights, munitions so that once they go on patrol and are only “self-supplied” by what they have and carry, all of that could still be achieved, if and when necessary?
Apologies for a little bit of a theoretical formulation and long sentences, but the sights were set for 2030 when raising the question.
“what is it exactly they have today in the way of supporting weapons to hit all the “missions” that Fatman put on the table?”
I’m talking British Army here, I know some countries are working on things like the K11 and XM25 (controversial in themselves).
1. UGL, ASM and indirect fires (mortars especially).
2. Infantrymen schooled in musketry with a very accurate assault rifle and good optics (SA80 with ACOG or the newer sight, even SUSAT).
3. DMR with optics.
4. LMG with optics and GPMG.
“I don’t think that he meant an individual, at one point in time would try to do all of those things, just that there would be enough interchangeability in the weapon, sights, munitions so that once they go on patrol and are only “self-supplied” by what they have and carry, all of that could still be achieved, if and when necessary?”
Is it REALLY necessary to have one weapon that could be tailored to each role given that it will likely never be particularly brilliant at any of the roles even if parts are interchangeable? Can the basic frame of an assault rifle do a GPMGs job without changing and making heavier nearly all the components giving you a system that only an armourer could probably change? Even things down to the firing pin and hammer and springs and cams need to be heavier and more robust on a GPMG and if you didn’t change those things you’d have an overly beefy assault rifle and if you didn’t have beefy components you’d have a weak and useless GPMG or even LMG.
Small arms are relatively cheap, they are classic engineering solutions, very simple indeed. They quickly stop becoming that when you try to get one thing to do everything. I do not know the figures but I’d take a bet that developing 5 small arms is cheaper and easier and less risky than developing one small arm to do 5 jobs. Even in 2030.
Something like SCAR – useful for SF. Not for the general purpose, joe bloggs, battlefield Tom, Digger or Grunt working as part of a fighting team in the dirt and the mud or hard, unforgiving concrete.
I don’t see why an infantry group would need to reconfigure on the scale you mention? We already have common mounting rails on our weapon systems so sights can be interchanged and so forth.
I think that assault rifles, LMGs, DMRs and GPMGs are all different weapons because they due different jobs and they are simpler to design and use seperately, even accounting for spare parts wallets on patrol etc, than trying to get one common platform to do all of them. People have been trying for a long time and about as close as they get is the GPMG, very effective but nowhere near as good as a Vickers water cooled MG in the defensive role and to heavy really for the LMG role.
Phil I suggest you look at what the USMC is attempting to achieve with its new carbine and battalion changes – in an ideal world there will be just an individual weapon and a team weapon in the rifle company. If you like this amounts to an old SLR/GPMG mix, but brought up to date. As battalion manpower and fire teams continue to shrink in size then adding more and more support weapons is not the answer.
All you have suggested is that we carry on doing what we are doing now and just improve it a bit more. That I suggest is exactly the traditional conservative thinking that needs to be challenged. Technology is certainly helpful but not the entire answer. Different team organisation, seriously reduced weight (time to strip body armour to a minimum and rely more on mobility?), and new tactics all have their place. Ideally the LMG and assault rifle should be a single weapon and LSAT could help allow this. But we really need to think about this quite fundamentally. The political pressure will be to minimise the number of infantry on the battlefield (because Afghanistan has shown we can no longer do serious casualties). Consequently those deployed need to have maximum flexibility in firepower and this is something we can only currently achieve through a wide variety of different weapons. Are we just going to go through the motions of replacing what currently exists? That surely is not the answer.
Fatman
The problem is, theres no right answer.
In my view, there should be no such as “infantry”, everyone, should be a dragoon.
Weight issues pretty much vanish.
But then you get to the real world….
Maybe we should just give up on commonality in infantry arms?
“All you have suggested is that we carry on doing what we are doing now and just improve it a bit more.”
That is precisely what I advocate. If this were done a lot more we’d have far fewer failed projects and a lot less money wasted. Some of the most successful and solid weapon systems have been born from evolutions of pre-existing systems.
I am EXTREMELY suspicious of any sort of revolution in military affairs and I am totally suspicious of any thought in a step change at the level of the infantry platoon / section / rifleman. The basic organisation has been tried and tested for a hundred years in thousands of battles and conflicts and engagements. There are variations on a theme but the broad ideas stay the same. There is going to be no revolution at this level because the job will stay precisely the same, close in and destroy the enemy and this requires bags of ammo and bags of aggression. There’s no room for HALO type rubbish. Things are how they are at this level because it is a solid, useful, tested way of doing things.
Small arms are simple – any advance in them for the last 50 years has been in terms of metallurgy, plastics and sighting systems – the basic operation is almost completely unchanged. There is nowhere else to go – you can hang on immature electronic systems for fire control etc but they at the moment are more trouble than they are worth outside the lab. You can try caseless ammo but nobody can get it to work as well as cased ammunition despite trying for over thirty years.
Perhaps it will ALL work one day but my point is small arms design has matured and is in limbo at the moment as all the “transformational” electronics that will give an infantryman the whizz-bang are too immature: ie they are too big, too complex, too power hungry, too cumbersome, too sensitive and not robust enough to stand up to the same punishment as the rifle. Maybe in 2030 you can get a fire control sighting system the size and weight of an ACOG but you can’t right now.
“Are we just going to go through the motions of replacing what currently exists? That surely is not the answer”
Why isn’t it? Why isn’t simplicitly, evolutionary design and sticking to what works on some level not the answer? Innovation for the sake of it is no answer.
The paradigm has not shifted at the infantryman’s level. No “big bang” development is going to change anything and will probably just go wrong.
We are getting waaay ahead of ourselves with FIST etc. It’s fine as individual components, bolted on, evolved, used as necessary, but as a system it is incredibly immature and it will be for a long time yet, perhaps it is unobtainable without a massive advancement in power sources, materials and electronics.
As for stripping back body armour – where do you suggest it is stripped from? It can certainly be stripped back in a general conflict scenario, but in a scenario where you have to patrol out in the open and mingle it’s your best and only defence.
Phil,
In reference to your comment:
“I think that assault rifles, LMGs, DMRs and GPMGs are all different weapons because they due different jobs…”
I must disagree to an extent. You have listed four weapons there where with a sensibly designed intermediate calibre there need only be two. The only reason for there being four is because of two ill-advised calibres that we are stuck with.
A decent rifle will be accurate enough and long-ranged enough to do a DMR’s job. If you want an improvement then improved optics could be fitted with minimal problems. You might be able to obtain a further improvement in accuracy by having alternative, armourer-fitted barrels. Most rifles can accept different barrel lengths and profiles without any significant issues.
A GPMG, chambered in an intermediate round would cover both LMG and SF roles (what it was originally intended for – hence General Purpose) Again, armourer-fitted components can be used to make role-specific modifications. Different barrels could be issued for Light and Sustained Fire roles, different optics and different ammunition feed arrangements all have precedent on existing weapons.
Mr Fred.
What I know about calibre’s and how they function you could write on a stamp. So I will defer to you on all such things as I can’t really argue.
But I would say that the infantryman needs to be able to carry a LOT of ammunition primarily for suppressing the enemy, allowing an assault to take place. If the calibre of the round is too heavy to enable lots of ammunition to be carried then that round is in my view pointless. Most of the 7.62mm fired in the Falklands for example will have been fired into peat and rock or overhead. I understand there are ways in the pipeline of making the bigger calibres lighter overall using plastic cases and so forth. If this can be achieved, if heavier calibres with more long range application can be as light as 5.56 then I’m all for it. You can get close to what you want to achieve, an assault rifle that can be used to reach out further and turned into a dedicated DMR by virtue of a few modifications such as clipping a bipod and a better scope on it. The trouble is this, as far as I know, that technology is considered nowhere near mature enough for countries to bet enormous stockpiles of 5.56 and 5.56 weapons on it yet. I suspect it will happen, but it won’t happen in this generation of small arms on any scale beyond SF.
Until that comes along then 5.56 is better than 7.62 and you will need a different weapon to complement the assault rifle to reach out further.
The GPMGs we have now do a decent enough job of LMG and SF, I can’t see why we’d forego enormous stocks of 7.62 link to get basically no real improvement over what we can do now with a GPMG.
I am very sure there are better calibres etc than 5.56 and 7.62 but there is no appetite that I can detect, to change to any other calibre right now. And until 7.62 is as light as 5.56 then we’re not going to get anywhere in my mind in integrating a rifle for an infantryman and a rifle for a marksman.
The only requirement I ever had of my personal weapon was that if I shot at someone, I wanted him to be hit (accuracy) and to go down and stay down (lethality). Of the 4 personal weapons I was ever issued:
SLR: happy with that.
Browning 9mm: dubious on the accuracy, lethality probably OK at intended ranges.
SMG: never happy, particularly after a desert test of firing 9mm at a standard black jerrycan of water at 30 paces, and not penetrating it. It did however once bag me a cock pheasant on Bulford Ranges during my APWT.
SA80 A1: Aaaargh! Felt like a toy, not as accurate for me as SLR, and I never credited the “wound a target and take 2 other enemy off the battlefield as first aiders” mumbo-jumbo. No. Kill the f*cker and move on. It seems that our infantry are now moving back to reality. I abused my rank after one afternoon on the ranges to ensure that my Sqn armorer kept an SLR for me. Sqn Ldr’s perks.
(Disclosure: theory tested on lots of ranges, only once in combat, where the only damage I did was a stab wound to an Iraqi inflicted by bayonet when he started not wanting to surrender properly).
Step away from the SLR nostalgia!
Incidentally, I have seen a LOT of 7.62 gun shot wounds and they are terribly undramatic – to the point where we didn’t see someone had been shot in the face by one. They have very tiny entrance wounds and seldom much bigger exit wounds. I have seen a lot of blokes and girls hit by 7.62 where is passed right through and didn’t hit anything important and they were pretty well considering they had just been shot. I have also seen a lot of extremities take a 7.62 and no, they don’t blow off the arm – they pass right through leaving a small hole. I 6 year old girl took a 7.62 in the wrist for example and she was walking around, very sore, but otherwise alright considering.
Bullets kill by hitting something important, it doesn’t really matter what size that bullet it in terms of small arms, a .177 air rifle pellet goes through you aorta you’re just as dead as if it was 7.62. If people don’t go down when they are shot it is because you haven’t hit anything important to them or immediately important to them. Even a 7.62 to the head, right through, is not especially dramatic.
Shoot someone centre of mass with 5.56 and you are just as likely to kill them as if it was 7.62. Dissect a major blood vessel, disrupt the heart, disrupt oxygen exchange in the lungs, all of that kills you.
I know this is anecdotal evidence, and there are lots of snazzy videos of rounds tumbling through ballistic gelatine but if a round tumbles through you and misses anything important, you will still be able to crack on even with a big hole in your back for a bit if you were that aggressive or determined.
Its Physiology stupid! As doctors say.
“Even a 7.62 to the head, right through, is not especially dramatic.”
I mean in terms of external trauma. Obviously it usually drops you dead. Usually.
Damn it Phil don’t dismiss my now civvy recollections! It slammed the shoulder when fired (imparting confidence), and I have seen some photos from the Falklands of 7.62mm wounds which look pretty gruesome (both sides using FN variations). I’m sure you are correct and have more practical knowledge, but there’s something about physics that suggests that if a 7.62 and a 5.56 hit the human body at a given angle and the same range, then the effects will be different.
There’s also the range / accuracy equation, which 5.56 seems to lose on.
5.56 – pink handbag containing a stiletto. 7.62 – hammer. Maybe there’s a hammer / stiletto sweet spot at around 6.5, but until then I’ll stick with the hammer. At least with an SLR you could always reverse it and beat the sod to death with the blunt end.
@ Phil
If you wanted to design a bullet to pass through a body and leave a small exit wound you would do no better than a boat tailed FMJ if you tried.
The USMC have their new open-tipped match-type round. But getting full kinetic energy to act on a body means fully expanding hollow point rounds which contrive Hague conventions. I do wonder how much an effect such a round would have on the overall “result” of the campaign. If as you say as our expert on such things a good number of these GSW are treatable with basic first aid.
I’m sure there are some very dramatic 7.62 injuries but I daresay they are in the minority.
I remember treating one patient – shot 3x times with 7.62 (face, arm, chest) all passed straight through, the only damage being to soft tissue.
Hit a major blood vessel and you will die, pretty quickly.
I personally think that hitting the head and spine excepted, people tend to drop immediately when shot more from shock and instinct than immediate physiological effects on the body. It takes a couple of seconds to drift into unconsciousness and die.
Perhaps I am wrong, and there are studies debunking my view, but this is what I have seen with my own eyes and drawn my own conclusions from it, having given it a lot of thought.
And yes, totally agree, my rifle felt like a pea shooter and the DMR like a proper, comforting gun of iron and flame and power but it’s not rational!
DMR? Not familiar with the acronym.
However, I have just done some casual Googling while having a mug of tea. There’s something called an FN SCAR available in both 5.56 and 7.62. Looks to me like my old SLR with a folding stock. I want (in 7.62).
“If as you say as our expert on such things a good number of these GSW are treatable with basic first aid.”
Once you’re shot, you’re either dead or you’re not. Which sounds glib but what I mean you have either right there sustained an injury that will kill you or sustained an injury that will be treatable with first aid at least for a while. Hit an aorta and nobody can save you even if you were shot on the operating table, get hit in the chest and you can be kept alive for a while but will probably die with no help eventually, but get hit other places there’s a good chance you’ll be fine with basic first aid.
Obviously with hollow points the round effectively becomes much larger increasing the chance of it hitting something important, it also dumps its kinetic energy meaning that the trauma from that is more likely to rip a blood vessel or cause wrenching trauma to an organ or tear the pleural lining of your lungs or disrupt your heart. Plus I imagine there’s more of a physical sensation of being hit since the projectile has a large surface area.
Trouble with expanding hollow points as far as I know is they’re useless against body armour and have little penetration, hence their use by law enforcement quite often.
I doubt that different bullets would make a difference to any war.
Designated Marksman Rifle, the L29A1
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/images/2011-3/2011318142421-pic8_m.jpg
7.62 sharpshooter rifle we use now in Afghan. Has a lovely sight, lovely weapon, big bang lots of range.
Stocks of ammunition are a pretty bad reason to remain with a calibre, IMHO. If we were to change calibre, there would be a changeover period that would probably last longer than existing stocks. Even if we did have left over 7.62mm you could sell that to any other country still using 7.62mm, Civilian shooters or just retain it for legacy kit still using 7.62mm (armoured vehicles, helicopters and warships all mount their own 7.62mm weapons)
The usage of small arms ammunition is massive. Some figures from the Canadian armed forces for an eight month period*:
5.56mm – 1,670 k
7.62mm – 747 k
12.7mm – 29 k
The British Army bashes through a fair bit too. In a 3 year period**:
5.56mm – 5,800k
7.62mm – 5,000k
9mm – 310k
30mm – 150k
12ga – 16k
However, when you consider that Radway Green can produce 1000k rounds per day and 200,000k per year*** the need to keep a large stockpile depends on: the need to use it, how long it would take to rebuild production facilities if more is needed and how much money you can afford to have sunk into an ammunition stockpile.
In short, I don’t think that the size of an ammunition stockpile is a valid argument for retaining any particular calibre.
Arguments that you could put in favour would be cost of tooling, cost of proving the new calibre and commonality with allies.
7.62 is too heavy for the use to which it is put, 5.56mm is too light to have a larger engagement range than it does.
In the first instance, an intermediate cartridge based on a conventional action rather than an LSAT would make sense to replace the current cornucopia of weapons floating around the battlespace at the moment.
*http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2008/02/07/canadian-forces-ammunition-usage-afghanistan-2006-07/
**http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6000016/British-troops-fire-12m-bullets-in-three-years.html
***http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/MASS-for-Effect-The-UKs-Long-Term-Ammo-Contract-05047/
@ Phil
The “reality” of shooting is a lot more complicated than the man in the street believes it to be. As you say there are the hard physiological facts and then there is the psychology of it too. I am glad that for me it is purely academic and not a reality with which I have to live.
@ Mr fred
I was amazed to find out the other week that Radway Green is knocking out a 1,000,000 rounds per week.
“I was amazed to find out the other week that Radway Green is knocking out a 1,000,000 rounds per week.”
They’ve been smashing them out for years now. There’s plenty of ammunition for all!! Hurrah!
I meant per day. Damn you edit function.
@ Phil
Radway keeps a lot of people around here in work. I do fear though if they have a fire and the factory goes up it will take out my front windows. And the back windows. And actually the bit in between which I call the house.
“In short, I don’t think that the size of an ammunition stockpile is a valid argument for retaining any particular calibre.”
I never said that was the only argument, just that it is one of the considerations.
It seems to me, that despite plenty of furore on the internet, and amongst special interests groups, and amongst manufacturers and designers, and evidence that there might be better calibres, the broad consensus in the US and UK military is no change from 5.56 or 7.62.
I imagine stocks etc is part of the argument, and the other part is that when combined together they are perfectly adequate in the situations that they are used in and marginal de-contextualised gains in paper effectiveness don’t justify the enormous step-change needed to re-make tools, design new weapons, replenish stock piles and the myriad of other things needed to change calibres.
A safer bet is that 7.62 will get lighter and an IW will be fielded for that calibre.
“I do fear though if they have a fire and the factory goes up it will take out my front windows. And the back windows. And actually the bit in between which I call the house.”
I’d love to see the risk assessment!
I read about RG a couple of years ago in one of the bizarre magazines that seem to litter TA centres and I was quite astonished at how many rounds they churn out. Presumably they could squeeze even more out of the factory went on some kind of equivalent to a war footing.
This all reminds me of a rather testing staff course research / essay project (scenario – you are a staff officer responsible for selecting a new crew served weapon for the infantry to be mounted on a pre-WMIK land rover). I went into huge depth on weight, accuracy, volume of fire, ammunition weight, lethality, range of ammunition, upgradeability, reliability, through-life costs, etc: exactly what you’d hope that any procurement person in Abbey Wood would do. Wrote it all up, quite confident in my answer.
Unfortunately, the Browning M3M was only available in a helicopter variant, so I plumped for more bog standard M2s with some optics. The correct answer to the scenario was 40mm AGL according to the DS, and I had too narrowly interpreted the requirements.
@ Phil
Half the factory is now a business park. I did a Windows NT course there an age. The building still had that curious MoD building/barrack smell of paint, lino, nylon carpet, and floor polish.