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.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
280 Comments
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.
Phil
Mr Fred is making the same point as me: that with properly specified weapons and the right ammunition we only require two small arms types, an assault rifle and a belt fed machine gun. The former would replace SA-80 and L129, the latter would be a replacement for Minimi and GPMG (the latter might still be needed in a SF role, but is a swine to carry in the light role).
As far as body armour is concerned I think we have gone in the wrong direction. We have now overloaded the infantry with so much protective kit that they resemble a mediaeval knight. The result is that they have lost mobility, cannot easily move across country, gravitate to ‘easy’ ground and then get killed by IEDs. We have lost sight of the real purpose of infantry and I would suggest that full armour should be relegated for use in static positions and vehicles. It has become a never ending quest to reduce casualties, in order to keep politicians happy, but has reached the point of diminishing returns. An alternative, of using a decent lightweight helmet and a chest piece only (as the Russians do) would go far to turn infantry from weightlifters into mobile forces. At the moment was have major problems with back and knee injuries, plus heat and physical exhaustion, without the commensurate benefits of being able to match the mobility of irregular opponents.
Ammunition. There are of course rounds that will literally knock people over, but unfortunately you are looking at projectiles like the .577″ Martini-Henry slug of soft lead, which is hardly practical. The US is quietly abandoning the Hague Convention stipulations on hollow point rounds, for example with the new range of 5.56 mm ammunition. In fact I have a feeling they never signed it, although they have abided by it for decades (I stand to be corrected). I would suggest part of the problem is that the UK is following an old legal agreement that was designed to apply only to conventional inter-state war (which is why the police have no compunction in using hollow so-called dum dum rounds). Given the changing nature of asymmetric war it is time that we abandoned adherence to these antiquated notions that are totally ignored by irregular forces and started designing rounds whose terminal effects go beyond simple penetration. It is ludicrous that the police can legally deploy more effective ammunition than the armed forces. Explosive rounds for the infantry anyone?
Speaking from a complete civvy perspective but I see two different “ideals”: a GP machine gun and assault rifle firing intermediate round (TARDEN, EM2 and 7mm combo from late 50′s pretty good) or GP machine gun and DMR firing 7.62×52 providing the sections long range firepower, rest of section armed with weapon designed for close fighting (300m and under) – perhaps something like the Russian 9×39 micro-assaulr rifle?
“Mr Fred is making the same point as me: that with properly specified weapons and the right ammunition we only require two small arms types, an assault rifle and a belt fed machine gun.”
You’re probably right but as I have argued, there seems to be no official appetite to change from 5.56 or 7.62.
I also think I interpreted, possibly wrongly, that what was being proposed was one weapon system that could do everything from assault rifle to GPMG by changing some parts.
As for body armour.
It depends on the scenario. In a conventional conflict yes there is too much of it. A front plate would probably be fine on its own. But you NEED 2 plates in Afghanistan because it is the only defence you have – you MUST patrol out in the open, in plain line of sight, you must go certain places at a patrol pace and you must expose yourself. There is no choice. It therefore makes perfect sense to have plates front and back with the side plates being optional in most cases.
I saw no evidence of infantry gravitating to easy ground: everyone knows easy ground is dead man’s ground. You train properly on pre-deployment, you maintain that phys on tour and you just have to accept in Afghan that your joints will be in a very poor state on your return but you’ll be coming home and after some rest an rehabilitation you’ll be as alright as someone who completes a career in infantry can expect to be.
In any case, the body armour is not that much of an encumbrance, it is more the extra kit that is carried that adds real weight and problems.
Oh and Fatman – we’ll never be able to match the mobility of the insurgent – he knows where he can and cannot run. We don’t.
IEDs are as much of a mobility restriction tactic as an attempt to cause physical casualties. Unfortunately that is the way it is, which is why we have camera systems and ISTAR that can track individuals legging it.
Phil,
I would suggest that ammo stocks shouldn’t even be a consideration. You’ll burn it off before you get the new calibre out to everyone.
No one country wants to jump and adopt a new calibre in small arms* so inertia dictates that we keep 5.56 and 7.62, which is a damn fool way of doing things, IMHO.
Rationalising on one calibre, whether it is a new intermediate or a current heavy or light one, would allow rationalisation of weapons into a rifle base and an MG base. Since the current crop of weapons will wear out and need replacing it would make sense to replace them with a matched pair of systems.
This could even be a L129 and a L7, with versions to suit roles.
*odd, because there’s plenty of small arms calibres and production facilities out there, unlike larger calibre cannon where everyone is falling over themselves to use or produce as many different variants as possible.
“Explosive rounds for the infantry anyone?” Only if if they’re 10mm explosive-tipped caseless, standard light-armor piercing rounds…
gj
aliens?
@ DominicJ – of course! In fact, some good ideas about future warfare in that film; I heard somewhere that DARPA get a lot of requests for projects thanks to US top brass watching sci-fi films and going “I want one!”. Allegedly the SOF’s tried out the personal mini-gun from Predator; weight of the batteries and the huge amount of ammo made it impracticable unfortunately :(
“No one country wants to jump and adopt a new calibre in small arms* so inertia dictates that we keep 5.56 and 7.62, which is a damn fool way of doing things, IMHO.”
I doubt its just inertia, it is probably the fact that the 7.62 and 5.56 do a perfectly adequate job as battlefield ammunition and that inertia, combined with the cost of the switch over, just do not justify the cost of the de-contextualised gains. There must be good reasons why there is no appetite for the change. Ammunition commonality might be one but at 1,000,000 rounds a day we won’t be short for very long.
“In fact, some good ideas about future warfare in that film”
Really? Like what? An MG42 on a steadicam mount? Or the Barelli shotgun taped to a Thompson?!
gareth
the bloke carrying it needed to be tied to trees to stop him falling over when fireing blanks.
From aliens, i think the dude with the camera feeds in the apc makes a lot of sense. especialy if he has a uav :)
@ Phil – again I’m speaking as a complete civvy but I was thinking of stuff like the helmet mounted cameras, bio-signals, armour being transport by aircraft (ok, its a spaceship/dropship but you get the idea),caseless ammo, multi-shot grenade launcher, etc. And theres nothing wrong with the MG42 and Thompson… I think the Germans still use a modern version of the MG42 called the MG3 (could be wrong).
What came first? Future Force warrior or Aliens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior#Warfighter_Physiological_Status_Monitor_Subsystem
I would suggest that the very fact that we have both 5.56mm AND 7.62mm in an infantry section indicates a less than optimal solution.
Multiple independent studies into the optimum rifle calibre for the modern combination of metallurgy, chemistry and ballistics have been conducted since the early 20th Century and all but one that I know of recommend something in between the two calibres. Where a rifle has been produced in that calibre, the obstruction is usually related to institutional inertia.
@ Phil
Regarding the the human reactions to being shot, there are as many studies as there are theories, and predictably everyone seems to have come to different conclusions.
There is a basic consensus though among the more pure scientific studies (usually conducted by doctors who are more interested in the result than what caused it) that essentially calibre size is meaningless to “stopping power” until you reach the large, very high power rounds, and that for the kind of weapons we’re talking about here (pistols to medium machine guns) shot placement and the number of hits are the most important factors.
One thing as well about Hollow point pistol rounds. There is a chap from Tennessee who does a lot testing using commercially available pistol ammunition, with a commercial Ballistic gel matched to professional specifications, which he then uploads to YouTube, including cutting open the block and showing people close ups of the path.
The one consistent thing I’ve noticed about his tests of Hollow point ammunition is that after the initial expansion of the petals which rip a hefty permanent hole within the first few inches, most of the rounds then leave pretty thin tracks through the remainder of the block. In pretty much every case he finds to the round lying on its side.
Looking at the close ups of the bullets when he pulls them out, it seems that most hollow points expanded in a non-uniform manner, or in other words some petals fold back more than others. It would then appear from this that the uneven drag on the bullet makes it twist sideways, at which point it then streamlines out and continues through the block flat, probably doing less damage (thinner track) than a FMJ.
Just some food for thought.
Along with one reported incident where a man from I believe Washington (the state, not the city) fired his pistol at a home intruder who then dropped down cold with one shot (not dead, but out of it). This was remarkable for the simple reason that the gun – much to the owners later embarassment and shock – was loaded with blanks.
Human psychology is funny old thing.
And as for Rommel and his jaunt through France in WW1, his experiences would suggest that all the research money spent on developing rifles and machine guns etc would be better spent on developing trenching tools, baring in mind that this was during the early, fluid stages of the war before the whole trench fetish kicked in.
When he and his men weren’t being shelled, then for the most part they were using firepower to suppress as opposed to actually killing, only having the opportunity to deliver particularly effective aimed fire in the rare cases that they were able to set up an ambush.
“Where a rifle has been produced in that calibre, the obstruction is usually related to institutional inertia.”
Which is why any discussion that does not involve 5.56 or 7.62 is, at this moment in time, very much conceptual.
Infantry need light rounds because their primary job with that weapon system is to suppress, which he can do out to 400m officially.
Any larger calibre must bring with it a weight penalty and thus make the infantryman less effective. Once bigger bullets can be made to weigh the same as a 5.56 then by all means.
Yes in Afghan there are longer engagement ranges but the thinking very much seems to be that it is better to adopt a small arm to cope with what is essentially an exception, than it is to adopt a cartridge that makes infantry less effective in one of their primary roles across most battlefield missions.
You need lots of bullets. You need to carry lots of bullets. You need a light bullet.
“that essentially calibre size is meaningless to “stopping power” until you reach the large, very high power rounds, and that for the kind of weapons we’re talking about here (pistols to medium machine guns) shot placement and the number of hits are the most important factors.”
That’s very interesting as that has been the conclusion I have come to from my anecdotal evidence. Hit centre of mass and you are more likely to hit (a) the chest and (b) vascular organs like the spleen or liver that will see you bleed out.
If you shoot centre of mass and miss all these things then that person is probably going to be alright. And it doesn’t matter if it is a 5.56 size hole or a 7.26 that just cut through your aorta, nor smashed through your head. I am not convinced by these lack of stopping power arguments until, as you say, we get up to very big rounds that are simply going to physically impart enormous trauma to the soft tissues even if they do not hit anything, which is obviously far less likely with a bigger projectile.
A 7.62mm entry wound is about 20% of the size of your little finger nail. Tiny!
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1904trial.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/pigboard.html
@ Phil,
there’s other factors going on as well, some of them scientific, others “in the mind” and possibly not backed up by logic, but still a reality.
1. 5.56 rifles tend to be automatic, 7.62 tend to be semi-auto. Drives different behaviours. What’s the difference in between firing one aimed shot with 7.62 and a short burst of 3 with 5.56, 2 of which are aimed off due to barrel climb? A couple of ounces saved in carried weight is one way of looking at it, alternatively an enemy keeping his head down for a bit longer is another.
2. Noise at target end. You know when you are being shot at with 7.62, because it sounds like bejesus as it bangs off a rock or wall next to you. 5.56 is much quieter. Again, that drives behaviours or reactions.
3. Wind drift etc (i.e. basic ballistics). There’s a reason most sniping is done with heavier calibre’s.
4. Kinetic energy imparted per square millimetre of the circular profile of each round. Something like double with 7.62 over 5.56 with NATO rounds at battle ranges of 300m. That – as you observe – does not necessarily imply double the destruction – sometimes 7.62 just goes straight through, and 5.56 starts tumbling due to tissue resistance. Other times 7.62 starts to tumble and then you see some really nasty “lots of flesh blown out” exit wounds.
5. Physical shock (related to point 4 above).
All taken together, it’s an inexact calculation, and one also dependent on how the victim reacts. It can go either way. All in all, I would rather carry the standard (in my day) SLR load of 4 mags of 20 x 7.62, than the current 120 rounds of 5.56. Pretty much the same weight.
The benefit of an intermediate calibre, as conceptual as it might be, is that you can get a weapon that matches the range of the current 7.62mm in a package the size and only slightly more than the weight of a 5.56mm – the best of both worlds. It makes the standard IW ammunition a bit heavier, but the GPMG and DMR ammunition gets lighter.
The US attempts to go one further with new technologies, but such game changers have a poor track record for actually producing something worthwhile.
Now if we are going to say that all the riflemen do is provide suppression* then smaller, lighter cartridges are the way forward** and that we follow the Jim Storr route and all the idiots who can’t shoot straight just get given an FN P90 or a H&K MP7.
Although rumour has it that the heaviest weapon gets given to the least experienced in some units so that would knacker that one.
* thought that was the job of the LMG, but nevermind
** logical progression and all that
“All taken together, it’s an inexact calculation, and one also dependent on how the victim reacts. It can go either way. All in all, I would rather carry the standard (in my day) SLR load of 4 mags of 20 x 7.62, than the current 120 rounds of 5.56. Pretty much the same weight.”
Having 120 rounds to suppress an enemy with is better than 80 rounds because at the other end, it doesn’t matter a damn if the bullet is slightly over a mm bigger.
And suppression is the primary purpose of the infantryman’s weapon – you win the fire fight, suppress the enemy and move in to get him with grenade and bayonet. British soldiers are not taught to fire at point targets in training scenario’s they are taught to win the fire fight. And that means bags and bags of ammo going crack over the enemies head while your muckers crawl forward to get him.
I’ve been shot at by 7.62 but only heard 5.56 in the butts and sorry, but I can’t agree, both make a very impressive crack and neither leaves you in any doubt as to something nasty coming very near you.
Fine agreed about the weights and the accuracy over range issue, that’s obvious but the infantryman is only expected to suppress out to around 400m, not drop an enemy. This is why we have the 7.62 DMR (optimal in the grand scheme of things or not).
I believe infantrymen are there to suppress the enemy. Even in COIN operations the aim is to win the fire-fight and give yourself more options. And this simply requires absolutely loads of ammunition.
Rapid fire is one round every 2 seconds, that’s two magazine a minute: so that’s 3 minutes at rapid with six magazines (if the rifle could do that without overheating and jamming), it can take that long just to work out what the hell is going on and start to issue QBOs. Ammo does not stretch very far at all and shooting fewer but bigger bullets into dirt isn’t going to make the infantryman anymore effective.
Just to be contentious, based on my experience on the range and in the SAT, with SUSAT and iron sights, I subscribe to the theory that most infantrymen in combat won’t hit shit past 100m !
So, like I said, just to be contentious, after reading Tony Williams articles on “Personal Defence Weapons” (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PDWs.htm ) I would give the average squaddie a weapon using the 6.5mm CBJ round:
http://www.cbjtech.com/sida.asp?sida=2_6.5×25%20CBJ
I might suggest a version of the HK UMP with a 30mm barrel for the average squaddie, and Tony’s suggestion of the B&T MP9 for those who currently get pistols or cut down carbines (vehicle crew, helo crew etc).
Two men could have UGL’s as per now, but the MetalStorm 3GL – with 3 rounds, rather than 1 at the ready, allowing a greater rate of fire. Add on the DMR and the light weight 7.62mm version of the Minimi and were sorted.
Reduced weight of HK UMP in 6.5 and the reduced weight of the rounds means they can hump more 40mm grenades for the grenadiers, and more 7.62 belt for the MG and DMR :-) Plus of course ASM-L (66mm rocket) and other stuff as required.
If the combat environment required it (urban?) stick the MetalStorm MAUL under the barrel, with 5 x FRAG-12 (18mm / 12 gauge) grenades, allegedly accurate out to 200m.
Want to win the “long range” ridge line battle in Afghanistan, up your number DMR’s and 60mm mortars.
Dammit, 30mm barrel above should be 300mm ! DOH…..
If you want a manstopping rifle round, then look to civvy hunters & what they use on deer.
So .243 Winchester minimum, with not many feeling confident to reliably control more than .300 Win Mag. The balance between power & controlability is probably optimised at the .270 Win/7mm Rem Mag level. 7mm Rem Mag, repackaged without the belt, in a smaller case, would be my choice.
If you must have AR sized weapons then 6.8mm SPC is a good choice.
5.56 has always been wrong since the day the USAF chose it for airbase security. It was never designed for battlefield warfighting.
Related to that, will this gimmick for feeble PDWs never die? Would you really want to face a suicide bomber while armed with a squirrel shooting MP7 or P90?
Many in the US regret giving up the reliable 30-06 & even we had it in Browning tank guns to the mid 70s.
By the way, I was reading some stuff the other day, said the Taliban are not easily suppressed by even 7.62mm or 12.7mm if it is spanging noisily of boulders, then tend to ignore the near hits.
They however do not like HE in any form, I guess it disturbs their equilibrium or something…….
So is the MG really for suppression, or more to gain hits on fleeting targets due to statistical probability of tagging something ? Is the 40mm UGL the weapon of suppression ?
“thought that was the job of the LMG, but nevermind”
It’s the job of everyone. Winning the fire fight is every bugger firing for all their worth, not watching the LMG gunner giving it big licks whilst they take a hamlet moment. LMG obviously gives you more persistence because it can fire for longer without packing up on you and therefore drop more fire power overall.
I get what you are saying about there being probably a better calibre. And as you point out other weapons would have lighter ammo, it’s just at the moment, for better or for worse it’s not going to happen on a general scale.
@ Phil
There was a very famous shootout in Miami between members of the FBI and a pair of bank robbers. At one point one of the robbers was shot in the face – a crossing shot, not head on – with a .45 calibre handgun. It was not fatal because it hit nothing of consequence (discounting the mans cheek bones).
The evidence tends to lean towards fatal shots resulting predominantly from loss of blood pressure and the associated problems that it causes. So major arterial strikes, hits to major organs etc. Severing of the blood vessels is critical.
Then there is the seperate subject of hits on, or close to, the spinal coloumn casuing varying degree of nervous dysfunction. Shots into the pelvic region also have a relatively high incidence of “mobility kills”.
Generally it would seem that energy dump and hydrostatic shock are not consistently supported by analysis, and that other explanations provide better and more reliable results.
The underlying message for hand gun users from many of the more credible experts is to use FMJ instead of hollow points, in a reasonably high velocity, with the ultimate key factor as to what round to use being price, because cheap training ammo which encourages plentiful practice is more valuable then any super round, with the choice of gun being best based around what is comfortable for the user along with reliability.
“5.56 has always been wrong since the day the USAF chose it for airbase security. It was never designed for battlefield warfighting.”
As opposed to battlefield…?
Anyway, why isn’t it? As I understand it was adopted because experience showed combat was usually at close range and required shed loads of ammunition and 5.56 fit the bill. No it’s not a HALO type round that reaches out and touches someone at great distances but it does its role very well. It’s a light bullet and it kills just as surely as a 7.62 if you do get to shoot someone with it rather than dirt and rocks and windows.
“By the way, I was reading some stuff the other day, said the Taliban are not easily suppressed by even 7.62mm or 12.7mm if it is spanging noisily of boulders, then tend to ignore the near hits.”
They’re being brave, some blokes won’t get their heads down, which is why if your suppressing fire is accurate, it should eventually persuade them to get it down by blowing it off.
“So is the MG really for suppression, or more to gain hits on fleeting targets due to statistical probability of tagging something ?”
MG is not a good fleeting target weapon – it is heavy and takes a bit of heaving and then its a from the hip job which unless they are spitting distance accomplishes sod all. Getting a GPMG up into the shoulder is not a snap thing! An MG is an area suppression system or area effect system – in the SF role it’s there to create a beaten zone not directly fire into the enemy.
Chris B
Without having read any study I agree with you. You die because your brain and vital organs are no longer being perfused with oxygenated blood.
A .22 rim-fire is easily enough to disrupt that process and so it makes no material difference in my mind what long arm calibre you use until you start to get to very big ones. It all depends on where you cop it.
Yes I’ve treated a casualty with a GSW to his face, a through and through cheek to cheek, same guy that I mentioned who had been shot twice more. All 7.62, no hydrostatic shock or energy dumping, just a very fast bit of metal going in, hitting sod all, and coming out the other side. Very sore and very dramatic as he was spitting out shed loads of blood as the cheek is vascular, but no exploding body parts or shoulders being ripped apart.
“Rapid fire is one round every 2 seconds, that’s two magazine a minute: so that’s 3 minutes at rapid with six magazines”
Wow poor sums! 1 magazine every minute so six minutes! My point stands, six minutes isn’t long when you consider that in the Falklands a platoon attack was taking hours.
@ Phil,
I remember winning the firefight (a British Army mantra imparted at the earliest stages of training) once in an Iraqi brigade HQ trench complex to the east of the Wadi Al-Batin. We all ran out of ammo, and that was with SMG with magazines of about 30 rounds. Left with a Browning in my holster and a bayonet. We were possibly too enthusiastic.
IMO, winning the firefight these days means having a couple of LMGs (probably 5.56, Minimi a good example) per section, probably also UGL, and mortars or arty on call. Not emptying a rifleman’s personal weapon. Riflemen to contribute, certainly, but more important is the combined situational awareness and shouted coordination you get from 6 riflemen looking lots not shooting lots.
Phil
Ref: “MG is not a good fleeting target weapon – it is heavy and takes a bit of heaving and then its a from the hip job which unless they are spitting distance accomplishes sod all. Getting a GPMG up into the shoulder is not a snap thing”
Erm, yes I get that, I have occasionally had a go with one ! (although more rounds through GPMG on buffered mounts when in RN).
What I meant was that if your GPMG (light role) or LMG is in a fire position, and your sending it down range in the general direction of bad guys; if bad guy(s) decide to break cover in a quick movement, your more likely to catch them with a burst – I did not mean “heaving” the weapon onto a new bearing :-)
@ Phil
The recommended round for private pistol users appears to be the 9mm, because it has decent size, comes in high pressure loads, and the lower quality ammo for training can be purchased relatively cheaply.
“I remember winning the firefight (a British Army mantra imparted at the earliest stages of training) once in an Iraqi brigade HQ trench complex to the east of the Wadi Al-Batin. We all ran out of ammo, and that was with SMG with magazines of about 30 rounds. Left with a Browning in my holster and a bayonet. We were possibly too enthusiastic.”
Hats off to you, must have been an experience!
“Riflemen to contribute, certainly, but more important is the combined situational awareness and shouted coordination you get from 6 riflemen looking lots not shooting lots.”
I’d say its both. I don’t mean to imply that the shooting should be wild, it should be a disciplined rapid or deliberate rate but you still need lots of ammo because the rifleman still needs to get rounds down.
Your experience attests to how fast the rounds get burned through in the heat of battle.
Phil
USAF wanted 5.56, US Army did not. In 1945 the US Army wanted a new Garand with 20 shot box mag but still chambered for 30-06. Atom bomb meant Japan invasion never happened so neither did that rifle.
Any round that whizzes through without hitting anything vital will just be a flesh wound, but a more sensible definition for stopping power, would be the effect of a single round to the chest. For that, I would take 30-06 over 5.56 anyday.
“Erm, yes I get that, I have occasionally had a go with one ! (although more rounds through GPMG on buffered mounts when in RN).”
I didn’t mean to patronise I didn’t know you had had the pleasure.
I guess it does both really!
“For that, I would take 30-06 over 5.56 anyday.”
Why? You will die for exactly the same reason.
“The recommended round for private pistol users appears to be the 9mm, because it has decent size, comes in high pressure loads, and the lower quality ammo for training can be purchased relatively cheaply.”
I don’t wish to blow my own trumpet, but with a long arm, I’m a very solid shot indeed. I am confident with the weapon, know how to fire accurately and am practised.
With a pistol, I am utterly bloody shocking. First time I fired one I could not understand how I missed the target entirely at 15 metres with EVERY round! Gobsmacked.
Difference was I had never learned a pistol, never had enough practise on it. So I would say that 9mm is definitely the best manstopper because it can mean you afford enough to practise plenty with and can place your shots very accurately into the chest.
A pistol is a brilliant area weapon in the hands of those that don’t train regularly with it!
Phil
US grunts moaning that multiple 5.56 hits are not stopping suicide bombers is the reason driving the whole 6.5/6.8/7.62/.338 development.
If 5.56 was doing the job, why spend money on 7.62 SCAR?
@ Phil,
started off as an investigation into what we thought was an abandoned position during a short halt. Only took 3 with me. Turned out there were some Iraqis still hiding there. Took 6 prisoners after a bit of argy-bargy with the gunfire, one of whom I had to persuade to surrender by jabbing him him my SMG bayonet when he looked like changing his mind (I was closest – no personal bravery).
Phil
Sorry, did not mean to be snippy, and you did not come across as patronising at all !!
@ Phil,
Weaver grip for the pistol. Transformed me from equally as shocking as you to “mostly” on target. About as good as it gets.
“US grunts moaning that multiple 5.56 hits are not stopping suicide bombers is the reason driving the whole 6.5/6.8/7.62/.338 development.”
So how does a bullet that is just over a millimetre bigger going to stop him? Perhaps they are skewed by Hollywood, people tend to instantly drop when shot because it is instinctive, not because their brain has been switched off like a TV. It takes a second or two for the blood pressure to drop and to go unconscious even with a good hit.
I think their expectation for instant effect on a determined suicide bomber are too simply too high and bigger rounds won’t alter anything.
Why SCAR? Well I guess because its useful. I never said bigger calibres were not useful, they are, just not for your average grunt whose job it is to suppress.
You’re in luck then Phil. Approximately 90-95% of pistol fights occur at ranges of less than 12 feet. Of those, around half start at less than 5 feet.
Based on collected video evidence of gunfights I’ve seen one recommendation that suggested almost exclusively training with the pistol one handed, because in the heat of combat most people are reacting and rarely bring the second hand up to the gun.
@James
SMG bayonet?!!!
God Bless the British Army!
“You’re in luck then Phil. Approximately 90-95% of pistol fights occur at ranges of less than 12 feet. Of those, around half start at less than 5 feet.”
You’re all over this perhaps we have uncovered an interest?!
Watching video’s of gun fights with marginally or not trained people (cops vs robbers!), the thing I notice, and I did myself hence my terrible shooting, is drooping the wrist.
With a rifle you have a relatively stable firing position in any two handed scenario, but a pistol you can bend your wrist up down left or right, especially when flapping which results in awful accuracy.
It’s why I oppose Police Constables being routinely armed. They have enough to do as it is and having to train hard on a pistol will take up too much time so it won’t get done and you’ll have people who can’t shoot for shit – which frankly, happens a lot in the US. You need to put LOADS of rounds through a pistol to get consistently good at it in stressful situations. Most coppers, US and British, I don’t think have that sort of time and don’t have the budget.
Pistol combat is generally governed by the rule of 3s. I was taught at JCTAT, it happens at a range of less than 3M lasts 3 seconds and average of 3 rounds are fired.
@ Phil,
re SMG bayonet,
no, God bless Capt Keith Lucas, QM(T) of 16/5L at the time. I’d never seen one before we went sandy side, but Keith dug out a store of them from somewhere and we all had them. No training involved, but there’s not much to it. Keith was RSM was I arrived from Sandbags, used to throw up a tremendous salute and a bellow of “Good morning SIR!” as our paths crossed, but he always did the eyes left/right to the opposite side of where you were until you were a Major.
“I was taught at JCTAT, it happens at a range of less than 3M lasts 3 seconds and average of 3 rounds are fired.”
And three turds unloaded into your trousers.
I remember thinking in Afghan looking at my SiG
“Christ if I ever need to use this thing I’m going to be in the deepest shit and I can’t shoot straight with it even when I’m calm!”.
If you put enough rounds downrange often enough, then even an average shot(like me) can become profficient with a handgun. Not just easy stuff like 9mm, but loud, flashy rounds like .40 & even .44 Magnum.
Unlikely to master them overnight, as it takes years of practise for most people.
The Glock 17 is an easy gun to shoot with reasonable accuracy, even if you do not shoot much. Probably why the Met uses it. Not an insult as I like the Glock. I like the .40 Glock 22 better for obvious reasons.
“You’re all over this perhaps we have uncovered an interest?!”
Of sorts, yeah. I guess it started with my background as a bouncer. As you can imagine I took a keen interest in self defence and hand to hand fighting, and at some point that appears to have leaked into the world of pistol fights.
It’s generally just an interesting subject, particularly due to the amount of misinformation which must be waded through and analysed.
A big issue, and not just for the homeless, seems to be the factor of psychology and experience. This is something that has a strong correllation with hand to hand fighting, and based on the evidence I’ve seen, “combat” in general, to include pilots in dogfights and infantry in firefights.
It seems that the classic argument of experience and training trumping equipment holds true, at least in the first two environments mentioned above, and probably in the others as well.
Panic seems to be the general response of most people caught in a pistol fight, characterised by one handed shooting, often without aiming (at least down the sights) while moving as rapidly as possisble towards cover.
I find the psychology and human factors/experiences of warfare to be infinitely more interesting than the equipment arguments, which is why I’m enjoying reading Rommels book so much.
If you really want to break that specilisation down, I’m fascinated to know more about and find out how ancient>>medieval>>musket warfare actually panned out in practice. I suspect Hollywood Melees are far from the truth. Which is why I find riots bizzarely enjoyable to watch.
Im the same as you. Interested in the same human issues. To the point where I studied people in Afghan. Fascinated me. And it’s why I give very short thrift to folk who bang on about equipment in land warfare being decisive since every big advance boils down to a platoon, led by its subaltern, advancing to contact. Boil down these big battles and you start to see how for example, the Germans did so well against us in Normandy. A platoon walking forward, a burst of fire, everyone drops down terrified, now crack on and get the bastard.
As for riots. You’ll have noticed that footage from the summer where there’s five coppers, in extended line, crowd kicking off but not really getting in their faces, cops pull back and you can see the exact moment the crowd smells blood and suddenly charges. I imagine back in the days thats how most engagements panned out, two nervous groups and one just runs first. Only takes a few men to peg it to start a route.
The logical extension of this has been my interest in lower level tactics (Battalion or equivalent, downwards) as it fundamentally represents human problem solving, in the most strenuous possible environments.
Things like reading about a Yankee P-51 pilot over Italy who found the most effective way to dodge ground fire was to just apply a little bit of rudder. The result was that while he appeared to be flying in a straight line from the ground perspective, he was in fact taking a slightly arcing or weaving course across the sky.
Phil,
main job of the baseline commander in NI riots was to look at faces – the basic physchology. Work out who was controlling the mob. Mind you, I used to really enjoy riots. Chess and controlled violence all at once.
Ah riots! Now we’re talking!
The thing that has always struck me about old battles is that casualties on the winning side have always been realtively much lower than the enemies, suggesting that the majority of casualties actually occur when one side pegs it and gets run down from behind.
When you look at riots, it’s almost like watching a school of fish as the line steps forward and backward as people sense weakness, then retreat when threatened.
What you also see is a gap, like a sort of mini no mans land between the two lines, and this is between people who aren’t even armed with swords and axes.
talking about US troops complaining about 5.56mm:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331
That really makes no sense to me. 6.8mm does not rely on fragmentation to get effect. So it still has to hit something. Which is no different from any other bloody round. And I don’t understand all that cavitation stuff, unless I’m shooting Pavarotti then the human body isn’t a solid mass, especially the chest.
It seems like the same people are using the same studies as evidence.
I just don’t think people drop down dead unless their brain has suffered trauma. I think people hit the ground for a variety of reasons and lose consciousness a second or longer later even when the heart or aorta is hit. It’s physiology. The difference is if someone is pumped up you really need to hit the heart or head to stop them dead on. Everything else is going to take a second or longer if that person is aggressive enough.
Phil
Weirdly enough, I appear to the opposite of you. Countless hours in the SAT never got me to much of a standard with the L85, however Chicksands had a pistol range, and we got to use it a lot – turns out I am a bit of an “instinctive” pistol shooter !
With my new found sport of ‘Classical Fencing” providing Rapier blades poking into my fencing face mask I have a new found respect for James’ bayonet !!
Phil & Gareth
There has been plenty of rebuttal against that “taking back the infantry half kilometer” paper since it was written in 2009.
It seems to me that the Yanks, but a gun crazy, “hog hunting” culture all want to be Audie Murphy, every infantryman to be a sniper !
I understand the constraints of the ROE mean you can’t rain down HE on every contact, however as per some of the interesting papers on the RUSI site, they sometimes appear to have forgotten how to manouvre aggressively.
Now you can’t generalize, and there will be situations where having “a bit of range” will be useful, but I don’t think issuing everyone an L129A is going to solve everything, nor is replacing the L85A1 with a Robinson XCR in 6.8mm, however good it is.
@ Chris B. – there’s a whole mathematical formula about rate of fatalities in battle. The basic version (hand to hand) states that the loss rate will be equal on both sides so the group with the most men will win eventually via attrition (of course, like you said , in reality the enemy which lost its morale first and withdrew lost its discipline and became an easy target, especially for cavalry).
Another factor was the culture of the different armies; the Celts had a warrior culture, where individuals sought glory and prestige in one on one battles. The Romans had a solider culture, where the Legionnaire was part of a fighting unit. Two different cultures, two different fighting styles.
Phil
Interesting snippet from a US Army TRADOC paper linked to by Tony Williams:
“According to the FBI, “a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord.” If a round does not strike the central nervous system, incapacitation will only result from circulatory collapse resulting from massive blood loss. This takes time. The FBI study states that “there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.” Despite the fact that studies have long concluded that shot placement is the most critical factor in stopping a subject, some firearms writers continue to argue for a system that can deliver a “one-shot stop.” However, according to Lt. Col. Henthorn, the reality is that Soldiers never fire one bullet anyway.”
However Tony uses the paper, which also states a solider’s personal weapon must be useful against the target, whether that target is 8 or 800 metres away, as evidence for the “best solution” – a new single intermediary round to replace both 5.56 and 7.62 in both rifles and LMG’s.
Tony’s article: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/future%20small%20arms.htm
Link to TADOC paper: http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/215919.pdf
@ Gareth
Yeah I’ve heard that sort of thing before, but the only problem I have with that is that I can’t see how they’ve derived a mathematical formula without any actual results to work from? I mean literally the numbers of people that fell on each side during the melee stage.
At the risk of sounding like some kind of Rambo/Steven Segal wannabe, I once was involved in an incident where a man was being attacked on the dance floor of a small bar that I was working at. As the sole doorman on duty I had the wonderful pleasure of piling in single handed with no backup, shitting my pants all the way.
Through a combination of skill, luck and rabid aggression I was able to fight off three men and then extract the poor sod in the middle through a fire exit.
I can imagine a skilled and experienced soldier of the medieval ages would make a big difference to his side. You’d be surprised, when faced with poor to average opposition, what a well trained and motivated fighter can do.
Wow, into the second pot of morning coffee and nowhere near the end of the contributions…anyway
” firing 7.62×52 providing the sections long range firepower, rest of section armed with weapon designed for close fighting (300m and under) – perhaps something like the Russian 9×39 micro-assaulr rifle?”
- the first part, in my mind is the right answer, as you can have rounds with normal loading and then rounds for a section support weapon (itself with longer barrel and different rifling; one shot for marksman use and three-burst for suppression at longer ranges = accurate to 600m and lethal to 800m)with a higher loading
- this is what artillery does (e.g.Archer has 1 to 5 range, and the joke about the Indian army putting in 7 in their trials still goes around)
- guess what: you run out of the specialist ammo… and go on with what everyone else in the section is carrying
But as for the latter part of the quote:
- how about 76 rounds in a mag? Why 9mm?
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/06/25/russian-60-round-quad-stack-5-45x39mm-magazine/
HI GJ,
“still use a modern version of the MG42 called the MG3 (could be wrong)”
- looks exactly the same to me
- the French would not have lost in Algeria had there not been lots of those coming in from Yugoslavia (from the 300.000 that surrendered there, and as the army went Warsaw pact-way in ammo, the surplus was off-loaded through the international “black market”)
I used to read “Combat Handguns” magazine. One of their writers collected info on real life shootings. He(& others) gained enough examples to say which calibres & bullets worked most reliably. From memory, most .38/9mm rounds work 50% of the time, while the best hollowpoint .357 mag 125 grain rounds stopped 75% of the time. Very brand specific though, I think Remington was head & shoulders above the others, but this is a twenty year old memory.These results were considered more reliable than gelatin tests. New York adopted the 158 grain semi wadcutter .38 special+P round, as they thought it was the most an average cop could shoot well & they thought hollow points would not work well in Winter when crims were wearing thick clothes.
So no magic bullet, but some calibres/bullet types can improve the odds. Remember these were real life shootings in the 1980s/90s.
Hi Phil,
-Which is why any discussion that does not involve 5.56 or 7.62 is, at this moment in time, very much conceptual; TICK
Infantry need light rounds because their primary job with that weapon system is to suppress, which he can do out to 400m officially;TICK
Any larger calibre must bring with it a weight penalty; WRONG (see my post above, 8:37 am)
Hi Jed,
I, too, subscribe to TW’s views (unfortunately the unruly commentators drove the sheriff out of town, from this blog site).
But this “based on my experience on the range and in the SAT, with SUSAT and iron sights, I subscribe to the theory that most infantrymen in combat won’t hit shit past 100m ” just proves the point
- if you don’t hit a man-size target at 250m, you are called a cook (but that is when you train with 7.62)
Hi JH,
“5.56 has always been wrong since the day the USAF chose it for airbase security. It was never designed for battlefield warfighting.”
- sorry to say, but that is rubbish. 5,56 was chosen when all the craze was about infantry only dismounting in the last minute and rate of fire was everything…next thing that happened was ‘nam and it was rubbish (has always been, but was proved straight away)
“Related to that, will this gimmick for feeble PDWs never die? Would you really want to face a suicide bomber while armed with a squirrel shooting MP7 or P90?”
- a PDW is a PDW, it is a pity that we can’t talk to those 4 Frenchmen in A-stan that were not given one (or the many more, before that)
From James ” more important is the combined situational awareness and shouted coordination you get from 6 riflemen looking lots not shooting lots”
- if it took this long to get there, I am seriously starting to doubt that anyone here has been through infantry training (James being a recce man, has obviously done that before being assigned his wagon)
ACC
Had those 4 Frenchmen been carrying Glocks, would they have been better off than with PDWs?
If we say, we will stay as we are as the troops get by with it, we would still be using the Brown Bess musket.
Re situational awareness. One story told in armed police trainimg. The SWAT officer with Helmet, goggles, gas mask , HK MP5, Colt 1911, who when beseiging the lair of a violent junkie crim, was stabbed in the gap of his Kevlar vest by the sweet little old lady who happened to be the crims Grandmother.
@ John Hartley re one stop shots
.357 125gr JHP at 1400fps is 90% one stop shot.
.38 Special 150gr LHP is a 75% one stop shot.
.32 ACP on the low side of 45% and very dependent on range, bullet design, and target mass (how fat you are and how much clothing.) This is the round found in that favourite of TV action production the Zastava Skorpion.
.41 Magnum and .44 Magnum revolver rounds come in at about 72%. Dependent on whether you can wield the gun and take the recoil. Actually you would be better of with a .44Special LHP round in your S&W 629 or Ruger Redhawk/Blackhawk.
Modern 9mm Parabellum rounds the Hyrdo-shocks and Hydro-point about 180gr in +P+ consistently score one-stop-shot >95% of the time. And the 10mm and .40S&W about the same.
.38 special should read 64% one stop shot.
Hi JH,
My point was that they did not have anything on them (has happened so many times before, within the base or on the ranges; in this case 15 wounded on top)
- I may have a twisted definition of a PDW, but to me it is something that can be carried on you (like a pistol or a revolver, without being neither)without hindering whatever you are doing and is extremely effective at close ranges (ie. if you are facing more than one or two which sort of leaves pistols and revolvers out of the definition)
- this might not be the “received” definition, just private thinking
“Any larger calibre must bring with it a weight penalty; WRONG (see my post above, 8:37 am)”
I don’t understand how your post suggests a larger calibre can be lighter right now.
“a PDW is a PDW, it is a pity that we can’t talk to those 4 Frenchmen in A-stan that were not given one (or the many more, before that)”
So the four French shot were completely unarmed? As in never issued a weapon as opposed to leaving it around base?
“if it took this long to get there, I am seriously starting to doubt that anyone here has been through infantry training (James being a recce man, has obviously done that before being assigned his wagon)”
No idea what you are saying here.
Anyway, locating the enemy is done before winning the fire fight, for obvious reasons. It is one of the section battle drills (or was if it has changed very recently) – a distinct phase since it is impossible to suppress an enemy when you don’t know where he particularly is. So those 6 infantryman certainly do look but they will then contribute their ammunition to winning the fire fight, or suppressing the enemy depending on what you like to call it.
“.357 125gr JHP at 1400fps is 90% one stop shot.
.38 Special 150gr LHP is a 75% one stop shot.
.32 ACP on the low side of 45% and very dependent on range, bullet design, and target mass (how fat you are and how much clothing.) This is the round found in that favourite of TV action production the Zastava Skorpion.”
What’s the evidence for this? Like I say I am extremely dubious about the evidence base for any of this stuff.
You simply must hit something vital to kill someone. A metal slug that is marginally bigger than another metal slug still has to hit something. The bigger bang and the pain of getting your bone shattered might drop someone but they’re not dead, just weak.
ACC
Last time I was in the States, I got the chance to shoot the pocket 9mm Glock 26. I was surprised how easy & accurate it was to shoot for a pocket auto. No bigger than a Walther PPK type gun(though a little bit thicker).
Perhaps small 9mm Glock 26/ Sig 239 type pistols the troops really carry with them at all times, are more use than the Sig 226/PDW left in the armoury.
Phil might be surprised to learn that I partly agree with him. There is no magic bullet. However those studies of real shootings, show some calibes/bullets better than others. The list of exact percentages is in the house somewhere, but do not have it to hand.
Young John H mentioned “Combat Handguns” and that magazine has a companion publication called “Guns & Ammo” its the US’s leading general firearms magazine. The article was published about 20 years ago and compiled by serving US policeman after a about a decade of research. They found the evidence for this stuff slightly dubious too. What started their deliberations was the sudden popularity in some US sheriff and small police departments for the S&W Model 29 thanks to the Dirty Harry films. After hearing about this round and that round for so long they actually started to do some research. Unsurprisingly the .44Magnum turned out to not to be a very sensible choice. But as has been said here there is a lot to be said for perception with this topic. If memory serves these were the same bods who found out that average number of rounds fired from a shotgun in US law enforcement “fire fight” was one (1)…..
TBH I am very much doubt Mr Terry Taliban stands out at 400m like the French knight in MP’s Holy Grail and says “Silly Englishman I laugh at your puny 5.56mm with its questionable stopping power!” No he will be keeping his head down……..
I would be very doubtful of two things; a) the reliability of one shot stop statistics and b) the supposed greater killing power of a 7.62 versus a 5mm or a 4.6mm.
The reason for a) is that it’s incredibly hard to determine at what point the man was stopped. If I fire two rounds into your chest at close range, does that count as a one shot kill or a two shot skill?
And how many people have been recorded in gunfights as actually having fired just a single shot, or at least slowly aimed and fired each round? That would appear to run counter to the near 100% of captured gunfights (on film) that show people panicking, fighting on adrenaline, and typically just emptying their weapon into/around the target.
The reason I would question the 4.8 versus 7.62 mm argument is because you’re asking me to believe that just under 3mm of width has a massively greater impact on the potential to cause fatality?
And as an aside to that, what do you think would happen if I stabbed you in the heart with a medical needle?
X
One New York stakeout cop was surprised when one crim managed to keep fighting for a little while, even after taking two 12 bore blasts to the Chest.
PS Combat Handguns , Special Weapons are a different publisher to Guns & Ammo.
@ Phil said “You simply must hit something vital to kill someone. A metal slug that is marginally bigger than another metal slug still has to hit something. The bigger bang and the pain of getting your bone shattered might drop someone but they’re not dead, just weak.”
Point of order here. We aren’t talking about killing anybody. This is all about “stopping” so putting somebody on their back still breathing counts. Somebody still bleeding but not bothering (or no longer a threat) you any longer would do to And though it is all hooey there must be some reason why manufacturers and militaries go with the rounds they do. As somebody has already mentioned the best data for this stuff comes from hunting rounds; where oddly to the uninitiated clean and quick kills are the desired goal. Finally as you say what the Army uses seems to do the trick so I wouldn’t worry too much what some bods say on a tiny UK blog.
ChrisB
If forced into a gunfight, you can have the 4.8, as long as I can have the 7.62
Hi Phil, (digging in the trench now)
It is this part “you can have rounds with normal loading and then rounds for a section support weapon (itself with longer barrel and different rifling; one shot for marksman use and three-burst for suppression at longer ranges = accurate to 600m and lethal to 800m)with a higher loading”
- which in no way suggests a larger calibre as you suggest in your comment
- it rather proposes one calibre at the lowest unit level (meaning: being self-supplied when and while engaging/ engaged)
- and the weight difference would be counted in grams (and interchangeable down, but not necessarily up without the risk of wrecking your weapon)
About the incidents in bases and ranges: You must have read about the previous ones. I am suggesting a PDW as standard issue (for some personnel the only issue)
@ JH
Aren’t they Peterson? Sorry matey. Those figures sort of stick in mind mainly because as Phil says it is all rhubarb at the end of the day. And as Chris says it interesting to try to see things in the light of reality and not through eyes of Hollywood.
Which reminds considering most Yanks are a bit well tubby who ever thought up the .327 Federal must be a marketing genius.
Can we talk about Mossad and their love of the .22lr……….?
This is all very interesting. Like I said I have heard the meme’s about stopping power etc and just took it on board and then started seeing lots of people very badly hurt and shot a lot yet still alive and then I thought very hard about how does one actually die when you are shot. And I am glad to see there is some cynicism regarding this stopping power malarky. Gathering reliable info in a gun fight is not an easy thing to do!
In Afghan (sorry to bang on but I don’t have any experience of gun fights in this country yet!) one bloke was on the roof, a loud crack and he dropped like a sack of shit. Straight down, he broke ribs falling is how hard he went down. He looked in short exactly like in the films and dropped down stone cold dead. Except he wasn’t dead and the bullet had grazed him leaving a very sore but ultimately harmless wound channel that didn’t break the membrane of his chest.
He dropped like a stone because he had been shot, not because the shot had dropped him.
If someone is aggressive, and up for it, they won’t drop on being shot, they will keep going a bit longer.
I think people expect too much from bullets fired into the centre of mass. Physiologically, it takes 1-3 seconds to die even from a catastrophic hit to the heart. Stand up quickly and the blood rushes from your head – that’s probably exactly what it feels like to get shot in the chest and your blood pressure drops to your boots thus it how it feels to die.
Needle in the heart? Probably go into VF.
“if forced into a gunfight, you can have the 4.8, as long as I can have the 7.62″
I’d happy take 4.8 and if I shot you in the head or spine you’d be just as dead as if with a 7.62.
I really think the whole calibre stopping power is largely guff until you start to get to quite big physical rounds that are just that much more likely to hit something important.
“If forced into a gunfight, you can have the 4.8, as long as I can have the 7.62″
More ammo, less recoil, higer rate of fire. I’m down with that. Guess I’ll just suppress, maneouvre and then close for the kill ;)
“About the incidents in bases and ranges: You must have read about the previous ones. I am suggesting a PDW as standard issue (for some personnel the only issue)”
They all get FAMAS don’t they? Fact is if someone randomly decides to open fire at a random time at random people, even in a FOB, he’s going to get people. PDW or not.
What’s the point in having rounds with different loads? You’re just back in the same boat as we are now. And the rounds would get mixed up as you know. Seems a pointless idea to my mind.
“Seems a pointless idea to my mind.” OK then…
Our own don’t get FAMAS, and what has happened?
- sometimes it seems that whatever is said it sort of does not “stick”
- so the PDW is a pointless idea, too
“so the PDW is a pointless idea, too”
Seems a step backwards to me really. Modern assault rifles or carbines are light and relatively small. Personally, I’d rather have a proper rifle, yes it can be a pain in the arse sometimes but with a decent sling it needn’t get in the way. And as a REMF you won’t need all that crap bolted to it, just a sight.
Phil, over and out with this one:
-where do you put your AR or carbine when you are in the canteen queue (I am convinced by now that you don’t listen to the other side)
Sling it like all the US Marines at Leatherneck and Bastion do. It’s no big deal.
http://www.popularmilitary.com/magazine/tgive5.jpg
@ ACC
You can be over. You can be out. But you can’t be both. Saying over means you expect a reply. While out says you are no longer on the net.
@ Phil
Well bullets do odd things don’t they? We have all heard tales of the watch case that deflected the fatal. Have we flogged this to death now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnFQkB0D0ww
V good, x. Down and out?
( I am stupid to be tempted, as you bait everyone)
@x
The calibre debate has been flogged into star dust a trillion times over on millions of internet debating forums and nobody ever gets anywhere convincing anyone of anything other than what they already think. Sound familiar to some folk on this blog?!
It’s why I don’t get into debates about the details of calibres, grains, loads, muzzle velocity etc it generates more heat than light, I’ve never shot anyone with any of the myriad of calibre’s that people often mention and really at the end of the day, I don’t think it makes a damn difference as long as the infantryman can do his job properly – ie carry lots of bullets to shoot lots of bullets at the enemy.
“V good, x. Down and out?”
Just “out”
“Hello one, this is another one, I have rolled my Rover over, over”
Contact……Wait out……
Phil, I’m glad you asked the question
“convincing anyone of anything other than what they already think. Sound familiar to some folk on this blog?!”
- not for turning?
@ACC
I meant more the CVF and JCA debate.
I am easily persuaded if people throw in some evidence believe it or not. And very often if I am not commenting on something it means (a) I don’t know enough about it because I either am not interested or am not a subject matter expert or (b) agree with what is being said or who is saying it.
I have admitted that I am sure there are better calibres for the job, I don’t know enough. But I do know that there is no appetite for changing, if somebody showed me evidence that there was then I will change my mind. Nobody has because there is none, and to be fair, nobody has argued that there isn’t appetite, just that its stupid not to have one.
To me, a discussion is interesting when it borders on the possible or likely. It’s why I find fantasy stuff not to my tastes, although some plainly do.
Which is fine by me, I rarely comment on such posts.
A very considered opinion, Phil.
I am here to learn (not duel) and I am quite active across all the treads, exactly for that reason. Also, the links provided by the various contributors are a treasure trove (it is almost sufficient to keep the TD window open, to stay uptodate, even though I subscribe to about a dozen publications… but can only take time to read a tenth of them, maximum).
I fully subscribe to your view “To me, a discussion is interesting when it borders on the possible or likely. It’s why I find fantasy stuff not to my tastes, although some plainly do.” but we just seem to draw to borderline differently. You may also have noticed (on other threads) that I take a keen interest in VFM – my only real interface with defence (these days), as a tax payer!
@Phil
As another ex-soldier with operational experience of both 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm calibres and now as a professional concerned with small arms weapons and ammunition development, I wanted to comment on some of the things you’ve said.
As you suggest, to rapidly incapacitate a human target in a way that renders an enemy incapable of further offensive action requires a hit to central nervous system (CNS) – the brain, neck or upper chest. Achieve such a hit with any calibre including a .22 target rifle and your victim will drop like a stone.
However, the CNS represents a relatively small target area versus the total mass of the human body.As I am sure your own experience testifies, the stress of combat often makes it hard to guarantee such a hit. More often than not, people who die from gunshot wounds die from a catastrophic loss of blood, i.e. Loss of more than 40% of total blood by volume or about 2 liters in an average person. A hit to a major artery can achieve this within minutes unless immediate efforts are made to stem the trauma. Hits to other organs can also cause significant and rapid blood loss depending on the areas and size of wound.
Military training emphasizes shot placement because CNS hits are desirable, it is important that bullet design maximizes wounding effect in the event that the brain or spinal cord aren’t hit. In other words, you want a bullet that is sufficiently large to cause rapid loss of blood. The key variables that influence lethality are bullet mass, muzzle velocity, mass and shape and as well as the diameter (or calibre).
The 7.62 mm round tends to make a large hole most of the time. Over the years, it has proved to be a very reliable ‘man stopper’.
Conversely, 5.56 mm has proved to be less reliable.
Yes, of course, there have been many instances when people have survived 7.62 mm hits. (There have also been instances where people have survived being hit by 12.7 mm HMG rounds, although admittedly not many.) What you want is the smallest, lightest round that delivers reliable and consistent terminal effectiveness.
I feel that the surgeons operating at Camp Bastion would strongly disagree with your assertions about the wounding effect of 5.56 mm versus 7.62 mm being similar, especially those who have removed British 5.56 mm bullets from Taliban insurgents well enough to walk in to the camp for treatment and Taliban 7.62 mm x 54R rounds from British soldiers most of whom didn’t make it.
We adopted 5.56 mm because many people felt that 7.62 mm was overkill. The latter was heavy with massive recoil, making it difficult to control automatic fire in an assault riffle (which is why the Army’s L1A1 SLR didn’t have selective fire capability.)
One of things that made the 5.56 mm round as lethal as 7.62 mm was its propensity to yaw. Yaw means becoming unstable when the bullet hits a denser medium than air. As a result, the round would tumble forward base first (where its weight was concentrated) to regain stability. In the process, it would make a significantly larger wound track.
The original M193 5.56 mm round used by the US in Vietnam was lethal to about 200 meters and yawed well within this range envelope. When it was decided to adopt it as a NATO calibre to replace 7.62 mm, it needed to be better suited for use in machine guns. So it was given a steel core, increased stability, and extra punch so that it penetrate a steel plate at 500 meters. Unfortunately, these changes meant that 5.56 mm no longer yawed as reliably as it was meant to. This is what reduced its lethality at all ranges. Often a NATO 5.56 mm round will go straight through a target with a less than lethal effect.
We didn’t discover this until 2002, when Iraq and Afghanistan really got going – which is surprising considering that NATO 5.56 mm (M855/ SS109) was adopted in 1979 and came into UK service in 1986.
The US has since improved its 5.56 mm, but we cannot take advantage of the benefits because the EU deems the changes made (which make the bullet fragment) are illegal under the terms of the Hague Convention. More important, the latest feedback from Afghanistan suggests that even improved 5.56 mm still isn’t as reliable in its terminal effectiveness as hoped.
For me, the most significant disadvantage of 5.56 mm ammunition is that the bullet only weighs 4 grams. This means it is highly susceptible to wind drift as well as lacking in punch. Wind drift limits 5.56 mm rounds to 4MOA accuracy, which means you cannot shoot accurately beyond 300-400 meters even though the bullet will easily travel 1,000 meters. You just don’t know where the round will end up.
Correcting the problem isn’t only about calibre. It is about a range of ballistic criteria which I won’t bore you with here (unless you want me to).
One easy fix is simply to return to 7.62 mm. Indeed, as I mentioned in a previous post, this is exactly what the Royal Marines would like to do. However, the biggest extra weight penalty in Afghanistan is carrying linked 7.62 mm ammunition. If we reduced the weight of linked machine gun ammunition, we would do much to ease the infantryman’s weight burden.
Recent research has unequivocally demonstrated that a medium calibre round of 6.5 mm to 7 mm in a conventional brass case cartridge would produce a 30% weight saving versus 7.62 mm while providing comparable lethality.
An HK 417 rifle re-chambered for 6.8 mm, for example, with a 25-round magazine would weigh 15-20% less than an SA80 L85A2/ A3 with a 30-round magazine. An FN Minimi re-chambered for the same 6.8 mm round with a 200-round belt of ammunition would weight 25-30% less than the same machine gun in 7.62 mm.
A 6.8 mm HK417 rifle with a 16.5” barrel would be able to engage point targets out to 800 meters with a x6 ACOG sight and to 600 meters with a x4 ACOG. It would also be fine for CQB being fully controllable for full automatic fire.
Thus two weapons really could fulfill of the roles of six existing weapons: (1) 5.56 mmL85A2 assault rifle, (2) 5.56 mm L86A2 Light Support weapon, (3) 5.56 mm L108A1/L110A1 Mininmi machine gun, (4) 7.62 mm L129A1 sharpshooter rifle, (5) L7A2 GPMG and (6) FN 7.62 mm Minimi.
The above solution really is a no-brainer – BUT ONLY SO LONG AS THE TERMINAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW CALIBRE PROVIDES THE SAME DEGREE OF RELIABLY CONSISTENT INCAPACITATION AS 7.62 MM. As we continue to debate this topic, industry is investigating this very topic.
We need to get our small arms sorted out, because we should’t be wasting our limited defence budget on multiple weapon types when we could make do with just two. Also, because there are other more important weapon systems that need our time, attention and resources.
Finally, suppression.
The MoD has researched this fairly extensively. (They presented findings at the 2009 Shrivenham Small Arms Symposium.) They concluded that the lower striking signature of 5.56 mm meant that it needed to miss a target by a decreased distance to have the same effect as 7.62 mm.
Another factor is that historically – with Afghanistan today being no exception – is that tend to rely on section machine guns for suppression as other members of the platoon maneuver into an assault position.
from a none military view….
Given that a 7.62 bullet weighs as much as 2, 3 or even 4 smaller rounds, is the extra lethality of a ‘cns miss’ worth 4 chances for that cns kill?
Monty all very interesting. I did say many times that my opinions were based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence and that there is every chance that my data set was skewed by the fact that the dead ones tended not to come to the hospital.
That said, it would be interesting to read the evidence base for 5.56 compared to 7.62 and above all the limits and problems with that evidence. I still think that some soldiers have unrealistic expectations of effects on targets when they don’t hit the CNS.
“especially those who have removed British 5.56 mm bullets from Taliban insurgents well enough to walk in to the camp for treatment and Taliban 7.62 mm x 54R rounds from British soldiers most of whom didn’t make it.”
Most of them didn’t make it because the bullet hit either the head or a major blood vessel, whether it was part of a bullet or the entire slug I do not know and I will never know as I don’t believe the coroners reports with that level of detail are public domain.
“We adopted 5.56 mm because many people felt that 7.62 mm was overkill.”
It would be interesting to see the actual contemporary documents relating to the changeover.
“For me, the most significant disadvantage of 5.56 mm ammunition is that the bullet only weighs 4 grams. This means it is highly susceptible to wind drift as well as lacking in punch”
Well I agree with the wind drift but I am still suspicious of claims of bullets having any “punch”. I don’t think the wind difference makes much of a difference to the average infantryman’s job of suppression.
“Recent research has unequivocally demonstrated that a medium calibre round of 6.5 mm to 7 mm in a conventional brass case cartridge would produce a 30% weight saving versus 7.62 mm while providing comparable lethality.”
Like I said, I am sure there are better calibre’s but I don’t see them being adopted any time soon.
“They concluded that the lower striking signature of 5.56 mm meant that it needed to miss a target by a decreased distance to have the same effect as 7.62 mm.”
Not to be glib, but bullets make noise and it’s the noise and the signature combined that make you hit the deck. And if the signature is reduced then I would suggest that is why optics and marksmanship
“Another factor is that historically – with Afghanistan today being no exception – is that tend to rely on section machine guns for suppression as other members of the platoon maneuver into an assault position.”
They can do, but pairs fire and manoeuvre is a basic tactic taught to every swinging dick who joins the army and that still requires lots of ammunition to be fired by riflemen, especially if the approach is 400-800 metres away. I know that in the Falklands it was learnt that the platoon attack actually took hours, not 20 minutes and that several re-orgs were needed and ammunition burned through at a prodigious and frightening rate.
As it stands right now I believe 5.56 offers the best calibre for the infantry because it is lighter and enables more rounds to be carried. I just don’t see it likely that anyone is going to change calibres any time soon. As to why that is I don’t really know. But seeing as the choice is 7.62 or 5.56 I’d rather see the blokes carrying 5.56 and supplementing with 7.62.
I was trying to say this (obviously, without the same level of expertise!) with the “self-imposed constraint of one calibre only, and also specialist weapons being able to use the non-specialist rounds when in dire need; noting at the same time that the “weight problem” can only be solved through the change of calibre, as per Monty. Rehashing some of the key points:
1.One easy fix is simply to return to 7.62 mm. Indeed, as I mentioned in a previous post, this is exactly what the Royal Marines would like to do.
[A 6.8 mm HK417 rifle *with a 16.5” barrel* would be able to]
2. engage point targets out to 800 meters with a x6 ACOG sight and to 600 meters with a x4 ACOG.
3. Thus *two weapons* really could fulfill of the roles of six existing weapons:
(1) 5.56 mmL85A2 assault rifle, (2) 5.56 mm L86A2 Light Support weapon, (3) 5.56 mm L108A1/L110A1 Mininmi machine gun, (4) 7.62 mm L129A1 sharpshooter rifle, (5) L7A2 GPMG and (6) FN 7.62 mm Minimi.
4. ONLY SO LONG AS THE TERMINAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW CALIBRE PROVIDES THE SAME DEGREE OF RELIABLY CONSISTENT INCAPACITATION AS 7.62 MM
The difference between the two solutions is not only the weight burden, but also about ten year’s difference in implementation time
- as soon as we are back to “normal” and it is thought that infantry will be dismounting from their wagons just before engaging, all of this will be forgotten and put into the specialist “sniper locker”
A snowball & a small canonball can be the same size & shape, but I know which one I would rather have thrown at me. So this idea that all projectiles are the same is nonsense. Mass,velocity,energy, shape all come into play.
The 5.56 & .270 Winchester will both propel a bullet at 3000 ft per second. Yet the .270 bullet weighs 130-135 grains while the 5.56 is only 55-62 grains. Double the weight must make some difference, or do the laws of physics no longer count?
Real world shootings point to some calibres being more effective than others. Granted even the real world can be skewed ie, was the person shot 5’6″ or 6’6″, 20 or 60, fit or heart condition, t-shirt or heavy jacket?
I agree there is no magic bullet, but you can stack the odds in your favour slightly with a more effective calibre.
Monty
Can I congratulate you on as thorough explanation of the ‘great calibre debate’ which has raged for years .
The biggest problem for 5.56 does seem to be its erratic performance.
It seem to perform well as a ‘man stopper’
IF THERE’s ANYBODY WATCHING!’
I’e on tests in the lab and on the range.
Whereas consistent reports of users in combat are of erratic performance, sometimes hits take an arm off, sometimes they have no apparent effect.
“Whereas consistent reports of users in combat are of erratic performance, sometimes hits take an arm off, sometimes they have no apparent effect.”
Combat tends to accentuate the erratic in many things.
One bloke, shot in the hip with 7.62, zipped around inside him, bouncing off his pelvis amongst other things, he’s messed up but he’s alive.
I just think people expect other people to drop dead when they are shot but I don’t think this happens very much at all.
And it’s very hard to run tests like that unless you’re a Japanese scientist in WWII.
The fact that it is nigh on impossible to ethically test this makes me suspicious of the evidence base and thus conclusions. The debate is as heated now as it ever has been. Effects on gelatin and pigs is one thing, shooting someone in different places, and when they are in different moods and frame of minds and have different personalities and goals and seeing what happens is the only way to truly validate stopping power and answer the questions once and for all.
The “effectiveness” of any particular calibre on human targets is highly debatable, as evidenced. As such, I would not be inclined to specify it as a requirement, beyond perhaps an ability to carry energy or defeat defined barriers.
The calibre then only really determines recoil, capacity and effective range (via dispersion and other ballistic properties). A small round like the 5.56mm doesn’t have the sectional density to go far enough and repeatably enough to be effective at extended range, a large round like the 7.62mm generates too much recoil (somewhat subjective but widely supported), goes further than it needs to and is larger than it needs to be.
The LSAT LMG uses 5.56 specifically for comparison with existing weapons – firing the same projectile at the same velocity.
Using that calibre for comparative testing doesn’t indicate a desire to peg the US military to 5.56 forever, or that the final LSAT gun would be introduced in that calibre. Besides, if they do switch to new weapons using CT ammunition, it would be of no greater manufacturing or logistical upheaval to introduce a new calibre at the same time.
LSAT is meant to be a scaleable technology relevant to a range of calibres.
Riflemen suppressing the enemy with mag after mag of rapid but ill-placed rounds is perhaps a dated idea that has only persisted because of the lack of other options. Bullets cracking above the enemy’s head will have a diminishing suppressive effect depending on the enemy’s training, experience of battle and their particular supernatural beliefs – and all those bullets need to be carried. Systems like the XM25 may be more effective and need a far less weight of ammo – paired with an LMG would allow the rifleman to return to marksmanship at the longer ranges, and an intermediate calibre would perform better at range while retaining the principle of the assault rifle and the ability to cope with accurate automatic fire at closer ranges.
I can’t agree with you Brian. I don’t think it’s an outdated concept at all. Until homing bullets come in its the only solution. And the jury is still very much out on the XM25.
Suppressive doesn’t have to be ill placed I add. In fact ill placed fire is the exact opposite of suppression. The whole point is to not give the enemy a choice in the matter, place rounds accurately around his position so that if he doesn’t duck, he dies.
Someone say homing bullets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO
RE: Supression. I read somewhere that the ideal is to match automatic direct fire with indirect HE, so LMG and mortar or AGL. The idea being the direct fire pins the target(s), the HE makes the kill. Perhaps we can’t discuss surpression without discussing matching HE lobbers?
Lets not forget sights. Some of the new telescopic sights have much greater variable magnification than before. Also more rugged.Capable of taking image intensifiers. Then there are the thermal sights that work in smoke filled rooms. So perhaps no more firing in blind panic.
@ Phil,
re suppression and winning the firefight.
It’s all a bit of a mental concept. With some years of reflection, I think that the standard orthodoxy that I was taught in the mid 80s was wrong. Back then, the thinking was all about lots of return fire. Now, I think it is more about accurate fire, not volume of fire. As we discussed above, there’s also the “burn rate” per minute of ammunition that the local commander will need to worry about.
My thinking now – with a dozen years of orthodoxy, and a couple of real life experiences, and some maturity – is that a good response could be categorised as a mad minute followed by some quality thinking, with a small proportion of the force dedicated to accurate sniping and the rest keeping their eyes wide open and doing some good thinking and sharing of information.
I was never a fully trained infantryman, so I’d not claim to be an expert.
@James
When I talk of suppression I didn’t mean to give the impression of blokes doing Beirut Unloads in the general direction of the enemy. A few riflemen firing at deliberate rate in turn combined with an LMG firing accurately should be enough to keep a fire trench suppressed or dead. Especially combined with more firepower if it’s available.
But then there is the fact that attacks tend to turn into chaos and in an attack blokes are going to end up having cracks at positions without being able to do it by the book. It might just be one bloke giving a trench rapid fire while his kickers crawls up.
Bloody iPhone! Kicker = mucker!
Combat takes shed loads of ammo because even disciplined suppression burns through rounds so quickly when you consider the nature of the task. And the fact that the more rounds you carry the potentially fewer re-orgs you need to bomb back up.
You’re right, Phil, that ‘ill-placed’ probably isn’t the right word; I did think about that when I posted the comment, but was trying to present a distinction between area fire and shots on individual targets.
Maybe XM25 itself isn’t the answer, but I believe there is a solution other than just more bullets, which as you point out have to be lugged about the battlefield by some poor squadie. I think it was Jed pondering MetalStorm add-ons for individual weapons. Whatever the merits of any one system, I think we should be looking in that general direction.
Monty
Interesting that after your lecture, you end up suggesting 6.8mm – do you mean 6.8 SPC that was designed by ex US Army types to be lethal out to 300m from a short carbine barrel ?
As far as i can tell from the billions of words on blogs and forums is that this round is considered by veritable armies of experts to be unsuitable for LMG / DMR use, as its aerodynamics don’t give it the required range. Discussion on Yankee gun nut sites usually turns into a Barney about 6.8 SPC versus 6.5 Grendel, while our own Tony Williams prefers a single intermediate round of 7mm – so while everything you say is true, even the experts can’t actually agree.
Unless there is some high level edict from HQ RM I have never heard of, I believe one single report from one unit, based in its particular tour suggested that those marines in particular would have put up with the weight penalty for the range advantage of a 7.62mm. As you say your in the industry, you may well know more than I do of course; but “the marines would prefer” is being overdone IMHO
John mentioned weapon sights. Another thing to consider against calibre is that over the next 10, 20 years and on, weapon sights are only likely to become more advanced, more capable in all conditions, and more available. Sights will extend the engagement ranges, and a round that is still stable and energetic at longer ranges will be needed.
In 20 years time, an individual weapon sight might give you a daytime IR image, or tag persons of interest that you yourself haven’t seen – and other video game gimmicks.
Brian
Indeed, if you have a lightweight carbine firing lightweight ammo, then the weight penalty of an under barrel grenade launcher is less of a pain: so for example a HK UMP in 6.25 CBJ with optical sight plus CQB red dot, with under barrel MetalSorm 3GL with 3 x STK medium velocity 40mm grenades ready to fire (out to 600m) weighs less than L85A2 with HK UGL with only 1 shot.
Of course the 6.5 weighs less so you carry more, so again the weight penalty of the 40mm rounds is less of an impact on the overall mass budget; and deliberate low rate HE for suppression then replacees spray and pray or semi-auto small arms fire. Bad guy might not hear the whine of small calibre high velocity rounds missing him, but will probably be distracted by the ‘bang’ and visual signature of the grenade, if the shrapnel does not get him :-)
As ever, resup would remain problematical.
Re: The Psychological Effect of Combat:
Fascinated by the observation made a while back that 5.56 diameter rounds had less suppressive effect than 7.62 diameter because they were quieter. Has anyone given thought to a round which is designed to make a bloody loud noise then? A real screamer might suppress quite well- a sort of personal Stuka effect.
@ Ant,
You mean like a bullet version of a sugar whistle? Like it. Can’t imagine the ballistic profile of something like that but in theory its sounds awesome ;)
As for how much noise a round makes, I’d have thought that terminal velocity (not the awful Charlie Sheen movie) would have made the biggest impact on how much noise the round made.
Yes Chris that’d do it. Agree ballistic profile probably rubbish as you would be swapping kinetic energy of the round for audio energy as it flies downrange.
But then as most bullets have excessive kinetic energy at the point they are so inaccurate as to be effectively useless (and then waste it on the landscape behind the target), there may be room for some creativity. Trick would be to keep the round accurate as it loses energy. I don’t know enough about physics to say whether the shock wave of the sound barrier trumps any penny whistle screamer, but you may well be right.
Anyway just a thought.
Bullets going near you are pretty loud. 7.62 leaves you in no doubt at all. Judging from working in the butts neither does 5.56. And they make a whizzing noise already. Angry hornets is as good a description as I have read.
Presumably you could do it easy with grenade/mortar rounds?
Lob it on a high arc, attach a whistle if it helps :)
Part of the terror of UGL and Mortar rounds is that you can’t hear them coming.
Phil
But surely theres advantages to both a constant low level terror that you’re about to be killed by a silent mortar, and the short term high level terror of knowing you are about to be mortared and had best duck?
One certainly sounds an advantage for suppression purposes?
The first bloody big bang is a good sign there’s more on the way. And if you don’t hear it there’s no need to worry as you’re dead.
“The first bloody big bang is a good sign there’s more on the way”
Good point, I suppose you dont want them ducking before the first bombs go off.
Dom: sadly for my idea, that sounds far more plausible from a physics point of view…and could work really well. It might keep heads down, or rubbernecking the sky (as opposed to the ground). I remember reading stories about the paralysing effect of Stuka dive bombers, both at the time and in rehab later.. Perhaps a platoon sized and launched “loitering aerial munition” is the next logical extension. 20 minutes plus of klaxon noise overhead from a suicide Switchblade UAV would be a bit draining on the nerves before a dive.
However I’m still wrestling with Phil’s basic point that one has to be damn accurate to actually stop an adrenaline fuelled die hard in their tracks.
Someone once said something along the lines of “the best kind of suppression is to kill enough of ‘em that the survivors give up”.
So whilst recognising that a cardinal loss of enthusiasm might also be seen from a lesser wound, what you really need, after suppression, is ludicrously extreme accuracy in your direct fire (and never mind too much about the actual mass so long as it gets there and tumbles). In that case where are we with fin stabilised discarding sabot rounds? Where are you Tony Williams? If I remember they don’t tumble enough, but what about a “tear back” fin on impact- that should do the job.
Remember that great accuracy translates to great reduction of logistic support which translates to less cost per effect (eg: seventeen to one ratio of gallons of fuel getting fuel to theatre vs use there? You could spend an awful lot on expensive things that work, like X-25′s for example, in return for that logistics train. If I can put a tiny grain of HE right in your ear sufficiently easily, I wont need 155mm HE in much quantity).
Laser homing rounds, at quite small diameters (less than 10mm?), might be on the cards in the not so far future.
After that you need ludicrously accurate indirect fire, and the time of the micro UAV approaches (consider DARPA’s hummingbird?). The nice people at MBDA came up with a concept for a tiny tiny short range anti-personal missile a couple of years back. (But then they would wouldn’t they? Nevertheless.)
So to address Fatman’s points near the beginning, what should a platoon’s ideal golf bag be in 10-14 yrs time?
After a 6.8mm machine gun, similar diameter personal rifles with underslung X-25 then what?
Super accurate sub-calibre rounds which work? Screaming loitering UAV grenades, a ready supply of throwable micro UAVs with video streaming and laser designation for homing mortar and missile rounds?
It might be laser armed killer sharks next, but how are you going to defend against that lot?
@Jed,
I didn’t mean the Remington 6.8 mm SPC at all.
I was referring to a specific calibre not a specific cartridge. interestingly, Cris Murray, who developed the Remington 6.8 mm SPC cartridge, went on to design a second round intended as a 7.62 mm replacement, the 7 mm UIAC. He has now developed a slightly smaller version of this latter round, a 6.8 mm UIAC which is almost identical to the British .270 round developed in tandem with with Enfiled’s .280 cartridge in 1949.
Enfield’s .270 cartridge, Cris Murray’s 6.8 mm UIAC or the Pedersen .276 cartridge developed between the wars, all provide a broadly similar ballistic performance in a ~6.8 mm round that is lighter, with less recoil than 7.62 mm and that is effective at 1,000 metres plus. Take anyone of these rounds and repackage it in a modern cartridge case and you would have the perfect startpoint for a new medium calibre round.
Last year, the US Army began fielding its upgraded 5.56 mm cartridge, the M855A1 EPR. Combat reports in Afghanistan suggest that it still isn’t the answer. Increased chamber pressures have caused breakages and the weapon must re-zeroed between firing standard NATO M855 and M855A1, which is plainly absurd. Right now, all those who have championed 5.56 mm and upgraded versions of this calibre are doing everything possible to convince the world that 5.56 mm is up to the job. If M855A1 fails, we may not have heard the last of 6.8 mm SPC. This is delivers extremely reliable terminal effectiveness within its range envelope, unfortunately the range enevelop is only 300-400 metres, so as you say it is unsuitable for DMR applications.
Canada is presently evaluating 6.8 mm SPC as its mainstream infantry cartridge simply to replace 5.56 mm.
The recent UK purchase of both the L129A1 and lightweight 7.62 mm Minimi should tell you everything you need to know about the British Army’s (and Royal Marines’) attitude to 7.62 mm weapons: they love ‘em.
@Phil
There is no UK appetite to change calibres, because we would not act independently of the USA in this matter. However, in the USA it is a different matter. SOCOM is extremely willing to consider innovative products, especially when they come from respected weapon and ammunition manufacturers.
If the USA were to switch calibres, then you would find that the UK would quickly follow. Even if the USA doesn’t adopt such a calibre, another driver of change could be China or Russia. Should they develop such a round, we might feel compelled to as well.
Tony Williams frequents Tanknet Forums.
SOCOM might change. But SOCOM is one small part of the DoD. I see no appetite from them. Or frankly any serious appetite from anyone to change. I wonder why that is. Interesting question.
I remember reading the Manual of Army Doctrine (I think that is what it is called) back in the mid ’90s. There was an effort to make it more available to other ranks to enable feedback from the bottom.
An infantry sergeant wrote in suggesting a new platoon model which, amongst other things, included adopting the SAW for sections and a GPMG at platoon level. The purpose being to offer the suppressive fire that was unavailable to a platoon armed only with the long and short barrelled rifles of the SA80 system.
He was politely put down due to the logistical problem of keeping all the machine guns supplied with ammo – the riflemen would essentially become ammunition bearers for the machinegunners.
The truth is though, that both sides had a point. The SA80 system was designed for armoured infantry, where suppressive fire would be in the form of a 7.62 chain gun and 30mm cannon. The system failed the light infantry, who would be handicapped by the weight of weapons and ammo; though the suggested platoon model in regards to weapons isn’t a million miles from what we have in Afghanistan today.
There has to be a change to the current set-up, and a better way of doing things. Soldiers now are having to carry extremely restrictive weights of guns and ammo just to deal with contacts that often involve very little depth to enemy forces, who often also show relatively little persistance.
We have to plan away from what is happening now, and avoid becomming entrenched into the slow lumbering tactics of unmounted infantry designed for action against small enemy units and oportunistic gunmen. And I’m pretty sure that a continuous rain of bullets of any calibre isn’t the way ahead; other weapons can be more effective at suppression and potentially lessen the load on individuals, while an intermediate calibre would benefit both the riflemen and machine gunners.
You’re just not going to get pin point accuracy from your average Tom on the battlefield even with exceptional sights. At that level there is no refinement its simply a case of dumping as much violence on the enemy as you can from everything you can get your hands on. It is the nature of the beast. Toms are not snipers, most aren’t even marksmen. I see no scope for a paradigm shift to more accurate less intensive fire from reasonably accurate intense fire. You’ve got to keep their heads down in order to manoeuvre or at least degrade them enough to give you a fighting chance.
Its a shame the MoD didnt think ahead and test some of these theories in Afghanistan.
Would it have been hugely challenging to pick a varied sample of different equipment spreads and ask if any platoons felt like being guinea pigs?
I think that the PDW/GPMG/40mmGMG combo makes a lot of sense in some situations, others think its mad, but its all guess work really unless the systems had real battlefield experience.
Perhaps then the answer is to attempt to provide a “larger” support weapon (crew served?) for the Platoon/section? 12.7mm rifle or HMG? 40mm GMG? TD’s fav the 30mm cannon?
Portability and ammo supply would suggest some sort of vehicle to carry/operate it. Of course you then you may encounter mobility and fuel/maintenance issues.
Gareth its called mechanised infantry. Not trying to be glib.
@ Phil – I understand but I was thinking of something like the ATMP or a quad. The Chinese ar expermenting with a sniper rifle on a quad for supporting their experimental air mech unit.
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVfVB3Bah5bVOq018RBHZgbMLNZU1sd81TbUiTuZsSSrbE85iEyQ6lJjlK
There’s also the MBRL on a quad like 6 wheeler; laser guided?
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/attachments/staff-college/5577d1158765913-pla-155th-light-mechanized-regiment-lmr009.jpg
But then you’ve made the most important weapon system the least mobile and the most vulnerable. You either need a decent vehicle at section level or you don’t. A quad is not that mobile compared to a human and cannot hit the dirt.
Gareth
But once you give each section a vehicle, it becomes a strange decision not to give them three, and suddenly you have motorised infantry.
@ Phil and DominicJ – Good points. I can see the benefit of giving crew served weapons their own transport to make them more mobile, but having them on patrols might be more of a hinderence than a benefit.
I can’t recall all of the details, but I remember reading an infantry officer’s “think piece” paper and thinking “that’s a good idea” of an infantry company organisation that had a fire support platoon with quad bikes, divided equally between mortars and AGL. 32 quads IIRC, 12 each mortars and AGL, 6 firing platforms and 6 ammo carriers with Nos 1 / 2 riding both, a Platoon HQ on 4 quads and 4 MFCs each on a quad. Would give rapidly deployable firepower out to about 8 km and the ability to concentrate some fairly “firefight winning” HE in quicktime.
James
In some situations, that sounds very handy.
Its that always difficult problem of deciding what exactly you want the armed forces to do.
Also. Quads are noisy as hell!
I’m not saying they’re not useful. Using them to transport ammo etc is a good idea if the terrain allows it. But making them organic to the sections and putting a good chunk of their firepower on it isn’t so useful.
Dom I don’t think platoon level operations are effected by the bigger picture of what you want the armed forces to do, beyond deciding if they sit in some sort of armoured box or not.
What about giving every soldier a quad?
Then we really do have Dragoons back :)
All we need is some way to drive and shoot and we can have cavalry charges!
Monty – thanks for the update :-)
BrianBlack
I agree there is no “silver bullet” (see what I did there?) or “one round to rule them all” but actually one must look past the small arms debate and question our strategy, tactics, training and procedures.
1. Why are we there in the first place ?
2. Why are we patrolling on foot so much ? Well because its COIN, or because vehicles are constrained by IED’s, or because we don’t have enough helicopters ?
3. Why don’t we use our potential massive over-match in firepower – well because it’s human centric COIN with a restrictive ROE
4. Why don’t we use vehicle mounted heavy weapons for range and firepower overmatch – we do, from Jackal 2 to Warthog with .50 cal and 40mm GMG, but have we got enough of them ? Plus see IED threat above…..
5. ETC ETC repeat ad infinitum
I don’t personally believe Aghanistan is the future of modern warfare, so I believe we have dealt with the issue in the way we should have: re-introduced 7.62mm GPMG “light role” and then procurred 7.62mm “LMG”, procured a 7.62mm designated marksmans rifle, procurred a 60mm mortar etc.
Helmand is not the mountainous province being patrolled by some of the Yanks, it is not a “ridgeline to ridgeline” battle, but one of medium range ambush of foot patrols from nearby houses / commpounds.
Danes, Norwegians, Canadian’s use MICV mounted auto-cannon and even 120mm tank guns for “infantry support” (“heavy sniping”), however UK does not.
Anyway, won’t drone on, but the answer to winning infantry “gun battles” in the stan is not simply re-arming to the optimum 7mm round !
Phil
On the train into Toronto this mornign was reading ‘No True Glory” – Bing West’s book on the battles for Fallujah. There is an interesting point made by a USMC officer about snap shooting. 3 times a “Hadji” ran out into the road and did a little dance to goad this officer into shooting. Even though range was 100m or less, the snap shots at a moving target failed to hit the bad guy, but he pushed his luck – on the fourth go the Marine decided he would try his luck at finding the range with his M203 UGL – and he did, catching the bad guy in the lethal range of the grenade.
“I don’t personally believe Aghanistan is the future of modern warfare”
Afghanistan might not be, but the micro-environment might well make considerable appearances in the future. Or make appearances in the stabilisation phase of a punitive operation.
“1. Why are we there in the first place ?”
Moving on!
“2. Why are we patrolling on foot so much ?”
Mingle with the locals, have a chat, a brew, a shura, reassure them. Definitely not because of helicopters, as much as I am sure most squaddies out there wished a helicopter would drop them off 300 metres outside the FOB.
“3. Why don’t we use our potential massive over-match in firepower – well because it’s human centric COIN with a restrictive ROE”
To be honest we do use it quite a lot. Even if it wasn’t COIN just lobbing bombs everywhere into civilian areas was even frowned upon in WWII by quite a few civilians and commanders. The ROE really isn’t always that restrictive, in fact most of the time you can blow shit out of anything you like, legally speaking (but not dams).
UGLs are nasty but have a quite compact damage area. They are nasty because you don’t hear them coming.
Anyway I’m rambling.
Phil
Rambling in response to Rambling is OK !
I guess most of my questions were meant to be rhetorical – and as you have more experience in the sandpit than any other commentor here (as far as I know) – would you agree with the overall point – that looking at the ideal small arms combination to win the “500m gun battle” is not the real issue, but that we must look wider and in the greater context of strategy, tactics, training and procedure and not just kit, ballastics and sexy new weapons systems ?
“I guess most of my questions were meant to be rhetorical”
I thought so but it was a break from studying.
I couldn’t agree more really with what you say in general terms.
However I think there is less scope to change things at the platoon level but TTPs are probably far more important than a slightly different weapon system or bullet.
I think there is less scope for change at platoon level as at this level, what we do is based on some rather large empirical evidence bases and infinite experience. It can certainly be tweaked in some areas I have no doubt but at that level it really boils down to different flavours of PRESAR.
Which I imagine you know what they are but for those that don’t
Prep for battle
Reaction to effective enemy fire
Locating the enemy
Suppressing the enemy
Attacking the enemy
Re-organisation
I think its a definite case of pragmatism at the platoon level and everyone does it pretty much the same.
Again debates about section size etc I find irrelevant because the Platoon Commander will decide such things.
Weight needs to be reduced, but Marius’s Mules would agree with that.
Here’s your new LSW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaBpeTRL1QA
Phil
“Dom I don’t think platoon level operations are effected by the bigger picture of what you want the armed forces to do, beyond deciding if they sit in some sort of armoured box or not.”
Well they kinda are…
Foot, motorised, mechanised and armoured platoons all have wildly differing vehicle mounted weaponry and cargo capacity.
A motorised unit has no vehicle mounted weapons, but it has (or should have) basicaly unlimited cargo capacity.
An armoured unit has some serious firepower on its warrior turret, but can barely squeeze all its men in, never mind boxes and boxes of spare ammunition.
A platoon in Vikings or Broncos has loads of HMGs on the vehicles for supression needs, but little anti armour or HE, and in my understanding, surprisingly little space to pack loads of anything.
Thats before you look at what sort of enemy you are expecting to fight.
Jed/Phil
““I don’t personally believe Aghanistan is the future of modern warfare”
Afghanistan might not be, but the micro-environment might well make considerable appearances in the future. Or make appearances in the stabilisation phase of a punitive operation.”
I think it might occur more than people think.
I could of course be wrong.
Imagine refighting The Battle of Britain, with Typhoons. If 2 Typhoon “armies” each 100 strong clashed over the Channel, does anyone seriously see 180 landing back at their respective bases?
One way or another, high end warfare is not going to last very long.
Makes sense if we move to a Franco / German war here.
The two airforces have slugged it out and either one has won, or both have lost the ability to defend their airspace against the other (Strike is easier than CAP or Interception)
One side, or both, is going to have a serious problem with losses from airstrikes, either big armoured pushes would suffer too much attrition from the air, or their simply wouldnt be anything to throw them at, If Germany has 100 tanks left, and France 10, France is going to disperse its tanks, is Germany going to mass 100 tanks against 1?
“Again debates about section size etc I find irrelevant because the Platoon Commander will decide such things.”
I assume none, but, what scope is there for a Platoon / Company commander to alter the weapons issued as per the organisational chart?
Obviously if his command has 4 DMRs, he can give them to one fireteam and send it out on patrol, but can he “request from stores” 30 DMRs if he wants to make a big push into open terrain?
“Well they kinda are…”
I said other than what sort of armoured box to put them in. At the dismounted level the platoon attack is the same whether you want your Army to be doing COIN or general warfighting.
“I assume none, but, what scope is there for a Platoon / Company commander to alter the weapons issued as per the organisational chart?
Obviously if his command has 4 DMRs, he can give them to one fireteam and send it out on patrol, but can he “request from stores” 30 DMRs if he wants to make a big push into open terrain?”
If the kit is there he can ask for it and get the bloke zeroed on it but no it doesn’t happen like that and it probably wouldn’t anyway – you’d just use GPMGs and LMGs for over watch over open terrain with mortars (and overhead ISTAR in Afghan).
Usually the weapon stays with one bloke for reasons of zero – it’s a pain zeroing on operations because of lack of space inside FOBs and zeroing a 600 metre DMR on a 25m range is not ideal. Sights can be changed without loss of zero according to the book but again, it’s not ideal for a precision fire weapon.
And you’re right Dom, high intensity warfare kills a lot of people very fast and in a small space. A lot of scenario’s for WWIII saw both sides just running out of kit and munitions with no decisive result. Back in WWII a platoon attack against a good German MG position even when heavily supported very easily see 2/3rd of the platoon become casualties. Sub units are one shot weapons in high intensity warfare, like bullets really. You fire a battalion and it might hold up for 48 hours in a defensive position at best, maybe last one big attack and a smaller attack or one big attack and beat off a counter attack – after that they are done.
I Br Corps in the late Cold War was simply expected to be ground through by the Soviets. The covering force expected to last x hours, the main battle area for x hours, the counter attack for x hours, the rear battle for x hours and then…sunshine.
It was simply a case of can the Soviets be destroyed before they grind through the echelons of forces available.
An attritional race that likely would have just seen a stalemate.
Phil
But 30 odd dismounts on foot patrolling a field/village/city, and 30 odd dismounts and a warrior patrolling a field/village/city are two very different scenarios, which may or may not require differing equipment.
Or so it seems from the outside anyway.
What different equipment? The Warrior essentially is treated like a base of fire. A less manoeuvrable base of fire and better protected but still it’s basically just that. In your example.
Phil
Admitadly, my example was poor.
Ok, two patrol convoys.
One is three Challenger 2s, the other, three Vikings, each with 30 foot mounted infantry.
I think its unlikely that the first infantry platoon is going to consider anti tank weapons that important, whereas the second, with three vehicle mounted HMG’s, might decide to skimp on a couple of the GPMPs it would usualy carry.
I could be wrong of course.
British infantry have always operated organic AT weapons in environments where AFVs are a threat.
Re my earlier post on sights.
Found the advert for countersniperusa.com . They make 1-12x , 2-16x , 3-25x, & 4-48x scopes. Serious kit made in aircraft grade aluminium or titanium, costing $4000 to $7000 each. Mil spec waterproof & dustproof. Designed to reduce parallax. Great for squad marksman.
For normal troops, perhaps Nikons M-223 AR optic. Comes in 2-8×32 or 3-12×42. It has a reset to zero turret & a BDC matched to the 5.56 (grr), though could of course be matched to another 6-7mm cartridge if the order was there.
There may be no will for new cartridges now, but one high profile failure by 5.56 could put that on the agenda overnight. Then smallarms do wear out, so when you have to order new ones anyway, would be the ideal time for calibre change.
My fantasy would be a UK licence built 6.8mm Tavor with Nikon 2-8×32 scope for general use + 6.8 minimi LMG.
We would still need a heavier round for squad marksman/GPMG weapons. A slightly boosted 7.62×51? Perhaps a 7.62+P round, or if there are fears about weak,old weapons, stretch the case by 1mm to 52mm & slightly neck up the bullet from .308 to .311.
So a new 7.7×52 round just below the 4500 joules Bisley limit.
Production ready polymer cased ammo that reduces overall round weight by 30% !! Go take a look:
http://www.defensereview.com/pcp-ammuntion-polymer-cased-plastic-cased-ammo-goes-primetime-at-shot-show-2012-media-day-ultra-lightweight-riflemachine-gun-ammo-is-combat-ready-video/
If it is robust enough this would make carrying 6.8mm no heavier than 5.56mm ? If so I am in ! :-)
Jed, I remember wandering around a training area in the Netherlands back in the 80′s whilst doing the Nijmagen Marches and finding plastic, 7.62mm blank ammo cases on the ground. I wondered back then if it would be possible to use a similar case with a FMJ bullet.
So with reference to a switchover if it happens it could take a similar path to when the SA80 came in. Basically it was issued to teeth arms first, i think it took the route marines and paras then down through the line inf, eventually coming down to us poor 2nd line loggies!!
With the reduction of inf and (hopefully) a break in buggering off to foriegn climes then keep the A2 with all the new gucchi bits on it for non first line and when the inf get issued new rifle just start a lower rate of production for us poor non inf. Navy as well logs could continue using 5.56 for a while.
John Hartley:
Why would we need a larger calibre for sharpshooters/ GPMGs? The point of an intermediate calibre is to cover both roles, not introduce two larger rounds for no apparent reason.
For sniping/long range MGs there is still the .50 or the .338.
The optics you suggest are an odd choice for an infantry rifle – arguably too complicated and insufficiently robust. Variable magnification may sound great but is it something you really want to faff about with in combat? Snipers currently have Schmitt and Bender scopes, which are rather good. Sharpshooters use uprated versions of the regular combat optics because they do not need a complicated civilian system. The CounterSniper 1-12 has a 30mm objective lens. The currently used ACOG has a 48mm objective and fixed 6x magnification, so it will have a better image in poor light unless you dial the magnification on the CounterSniper scope right back.
Rifle sights going back to before the SMLE have had BDCs incorporated into them, although in those dreary, pre-TLA days they were called something simple like “range settings”
Do the new infantry sights not have 2 different mags you can flip between? The ACOG with CQB sight I thought was pretty awesome. Very clear.
Phil,
No. Elcan do offer a sight with a quick change between two fixed magnifications, but the British Army did not select that one.
http://www.eurooptic.com/PDF/Elcan-SpecterOS-4x-spec-sheet.pdf
Military weapon optics are being continually upgraded and Afghanistan has done much to influence research and design in this area. Thanks to smaller sensors, we will soon see sights with adjustable magnification and automatic adjustment for wind and range that cost less $1,000. Ordinary riflemen with gain the ability to shoot accurately to 600 metres; skilled ones to 800-1,000 metres. With an entire squad / section equipped with such sights, the business of locating the enemy and putting down accurate suppressive fire is likely to become much easier.
At the end of the Second World War, the UK’s our own empirical research of small arms engagement ranges and weapon usage led us to conclude that individual riflemen needed to be able to engage targets to 300 metres and sections out to 600 metres. The reason we didn’t specify individual riflemen being able to shoot to 600 metres was because we didn’t have the sights or individual weapon skill needed to achieve hits at this range. Now we do.
The requirement for sections to be able to shoot to 600 metres remained set in stone until SA80 came into service. Conceptually, 5.56 mm was always a good idea. Smaller rounds means you can carry more of them. The more you can carry, the more you can shoot, the greater your hit probability. The question is how small can you go? 5.56 mm may simply be too small to be a general purpose military calibre.
Certainly, fitting advanced long range sights to 5.56 mm weapons is likely to be pointless, because engaging enemies past 300 metres is likely to achieve the desired result. While 7.62 mm is ideal, again we still have this weight and recoil penalty. Which is why we need something slightly smaller.
As many commentators here have sensibly observed, changing calibres is about much more than the diameter of the bullets we use. It is concerned with bullet design including construction, length, sectional density, mass and muzzle energy and how these influence its behaviour as it flies towards a target and when it penetrates a target.
Throwing a comment in at a tangent, caseless ammunition does have its pro’s and cons for automatic weapons, but in the case of a long range sniper rifle like the L115A3 it could be more practical. My reasoning goes via the Voere VEC-91 hunting rifle, although its only produced in 5.7 and 6 mm, which limits its use, and is dependent on electric firing, it demonstrates the feasibility and practicalities of caseless.
I’ve searched on the web for pictures of the VEC-91′s breech design to try and see how they achieve obturation but to no avail. Also, the need for batteries to fire it negates any weight saving that caseless ammunition brings.
http://www.gunsinternational.com/Voere-VEC-91-Electronic-Caseless-Ammunition-5-7MM-Rifle-.cfm?gun_id=100218509
Perhaps a militarised version in .308./.338 for experimental use, any takers?
Doh! Should have added ‘using a percussion cap in lieu of the electric system’….where’s the edit facility on this infernal machine? Damn my IT ignorance!
Monty,
I think that your price is somewhat optimistic. A modern fixed magnification combat rifle sight will cost over $1000, a low-end thermal sight costs $3000. A high
-end sniper’s sight will set you back upwards of $2000 before you start adding low light or thermal electro-optics. The basic optics are not cheap.
To then add computing and sensors will only increase the cost and you then have to factor in the ability of the user to hold his weapon at the required aiming mark.
Variable magnification can be dangerous as it will encourage shooting at targets that are out of effective weapon range and restricts the user’s field of view.
To shoot at targets beyond 600m is entirely possible with iron sights. Machine guns regularly do and the Mauser, Lee Enfield and Garand are all quite capable of hitting a target at 1000m
Ace Rimmer,
My understanding would be that a caseless round makes much less sense for a high-accuracy rifle than for an automatic weapon.
* Caseless ammo has no consistent way of engaging the projectile in the rifling and therefore will have inferior internal ballistics.
* The propellant is not sealed against the environment and therefore will be less consistent.
* The high velocities and projectile weight desired in a sniping rifle require increased chamber pressures which make obturation harder – much harder if you have no case.
* The weapon fires only a very few shots so the weight saving is much less.
Mr Fred
I used to be against variable scopes, but many of the problems(parallax/bullet drop) have been much reduced lately.
I hit a bull on a 1000 metre target at Bisley on a cold wet January morning many decades ago with an iron sighted 7.62. Sadly this was the target next to the one I was aiming at.
On the nearby Pirbright ranges, I struggled to hit a 400m target with an iron sighted .303 Lee Enfield.
However, now I know the holdover point, I can put .270 Win bullets into a 600m target all day long with a simple 4x scope.
The new generation of rifle scopes are awesome. Wish I had one.
Mr Fred
I do not think one calibre can do it all. 6.8 SPC is good as a 5.56 replacement, while my fantasy 7.7×52 would put right the 7.62 failings.
@ John H
.375 CheyTac ?
Anyway the round we need for our infantry rifle is 7.62×35mm. Super. My new favourite.
John Hartley,
AIUI, the failings of the 7.62NATO round is that it is too big, too heavy and gives too much recoil. If anything, on that basis, your fantasy 7.7mm would make it worse, not better. The point of a round in the 6.5 to 7mm is that it will reach as far as the current 7.62 round while weighing only fractionally more than a 5.56mm. What can this hypothetical 7.7mm do that a 6.8 or even the current 7.62mm cannot?
Regarding the use of sights, might I be permitted to point out that anecdote and data are not the same thing? I’ve used iron sights that were very accurate and scopes that were not. Correctly set up there is no reason that iron sights should be any less accurate than a scope.
Scopes are nice and give a very useful advantage in identifying your target. The latest combat optics are absolutely brilliant. Excellent light gathering and superb field of view coupled with illuminated aiming mark and relatively low magnification make them very usable.
Variable magnification scopes mean another thing to go wrong, another control to mess about with. The high magnification scopes you linked to reduce the field of view and will have relatively poor low-light performance due to their small objective lens.
There is no “one round to rule them all”.
One mid calibre maybe too heavy for the light assault rifle role, yet lack the clout for the sniper/support machine gun role.
For the heavy role, the 7.62 falls short, just. You could go to a much heavier calibre such as .338 Lapua, but that is too big a cartridge for the deployable weapons I am on about. A boosted 7.62 is a good compromise. Weapons not too large or heavy. Recoil not in the .338 Lapua level of discomfort. Hence my fantasy 7.7×52.
Twenty years ago, I was against variable scopes, but the world has moved on.
If I may dabble into something that is probably well beyond my competency.
But was not the conclusion of research such as Project SALVO that the effectiveness of the round is actually one of the least important factors.
By that I mean that extensive study of reports and interview with low level commanders from WW1 and WW2 showed that really it was the ability to deliver large quantities of rapid fire in the early stages of an engagement that was far more important. As long as the rounds were moderately effective (a high power 5.6x15mm (the .22 LR) will penetrate a deers skull at 100 yards from a decent rifle) that was all that mattered.
Suppression was more important than any individual case of “stopping power”, thus the ability to carry large amounts of ammunition and to send it down range in a reasonably rapid manner was the key.
On this note I come back to “Infantry Attacks” by Erwin Rommel, (cannot speak highly enough of this war diary). Time after time (and this in the age of high powered bolt-action rifles 1914-18) the rate of fire was a big deciding factor in engagements, along with the support of rapid fire machine guns and artillery/mortars.
This is consistent with all the data that has been gathered over the years and would suggest that something like a light 4.5mm x 35-40mm round would be the ideal round for a robustly built infantry weapon.
Well, during the Falklands, our guys who believed the 7.62 would result in a one hit kill, were surprised when shot Argentines were able to run away. Blazing away at Argentine jets with 7.62 GPMGs were for morale, the jets were in range for only a second.
During WW2, many carried the light .30 MI carbine. Having been in combat, they often swapped for the heavier .30-06 M1 rifle.
I read of an American civilian who did not want to spend serious money on a gun. So he bought a cheap .25. He found himself thrust into someone elses gunfight. The next day he bought a .45.
If you want to go into a battle with a 4.5mm, then good luck. If you survive, my guess is you will want to swap for a bigger calibre.
Chris.B, if its suppression that is the key or at least rounds in the vicinity, wouldn’t flechette rounds suit your purpose better?
As an aside, in England you’re banned from shooting deer with anything less than a 100 grain bullet, albeit they are expanding and banned by the Hague convention. By my reckoning you should be looking at something at a similar weight for knocking down an enemy soldier. With the 6.8 SPC being 115 grains, it may not be perfect but it fits the bill.
Thought people might find this interesting:
http://g2mil.com/6mm_optimum_cartridge.htm
If suppression is valued more than accuracy then what about duplex bullets?
John Hartley,
Why does the 7.62 “fall short”? Does it not reach far enough? Does it not defeat armour well enough? Is it some ill-defined “lethality” aspect? What good is an additional three hundredths of an inch on the bullet and a millimetre on the case going to actually gain?
What is a “Light Assault Rifle”? How is it different to a normal assault rifle? What does it do differently to a regular rifle? If it is high weight of fire, small rounds and high capacity, would something like an FN P90, H&K MP7 or B&T MP9 not be more suitable?
I would contend that the infantry weapon system needs to reach perhaps 800m for good shots and section fire, which an intermediate calibre will do, while allowing a decent weight of fire. Using a better mount would probably give you a kilometre plus for your GPMGs (General Purpose – both LMG and SFMG in the same basic gun
What do you want your support weapon to do? Support MGs and Sniper’s rifles could be served by 40mm HV grenades and .338 respectively, although that would require a new MG for the .338.
You could have the Rifle and MG sharing the same calibre at section level, a couple of spare MGs or just the tripod and other SF accessories at platoon and heavier weapons either in a company-level weapons platoon or a battalion-level weapons company that can detach platoons to the rifle companies.
You seem to be confusing anecdotes with statistically valid data again. “Many” and “Often” is a very vague consideration, but can be indicative of a trend. What one US civilian does with regards to handgun choice is pretty much irrelevant.
Having just finished “No true glory” the story of the Battles for Fallujah, I could pass on some anecdotes.
US Marines shot through arm, shoulder, under arm (i.e. the round missed the armour) by AK rounds who die of their wounds quite quickly. Marines and “Muj” who get shot in the face at point blank range and live. Muj shot at 100 to 200m with 5.56 who get up and stagger away (but often found bled out later).
Grenade fights inside houses that were inconclusive – I was really surprised how many people on both sides seem to survive grenades going off quite close.
Iraqi insurgents who survived multiple grenades, AT4′s, 120mm tank rounds, and finally even survived the house being dropped around them by C4 satchel charges, and had to be “finished off” with close range shots to the head.
Oh, and of course, the real reason people want “one shot one kill” – the suicide bomber – one of whom took at least 5 to 6 x 5.56 at almost point blank range and still closed on the Marines and blew himself up, killing one of the those Marines.
It appears to me, reading stuff on various forums, that 5.56 has problems from short M4 carbine barrels at short range, and of course, from the book it appears a lot more insurgents were wearing body armour than might be suspected – of course this differs greatly from the long range ‘ridge line to ridge line” gun battles of Afghanistan.
Personally I think many of the Marines in Fallujah might have been well happy with a little SMG firing 6.5mm CBJ type rounds, being that they could have carried 100′s of extra rounds for the same weight.
Yet this would not cut the mustard in the long range gun battle of the Stan ?
So as I have said, most of the squad carries a close range (200m to 300m max effective against point target) gun, while they can act as mules for the LMG, DM and ‘grenadier’ carrying accurate weapons that can reach out, and also provide volume, accuracy or HE effects in urban environments.
Not every squaddie needs to be a sniper.
@ JH
The Carbine found a lot of favour in WW2. Most reports back from users (aside from technical niggles) were highly favourable to the weapon, a case that was repeated with the Thompson SMG.
As was pointed out earlier, one mans anecdote about a civilian handgun encounter is a poor indicator of choice for military weapons. For every story about a lack of “stopping power” in certain small handguns, I can raise you multiple stories of people shot repeatedly with .38 specials and still escaping, the FBI Miami shootout guy who was hit in the face with a .45 and kept going (having already been shot multiple times) or a pair of Californian bank robbers who were shot over twenty times in the feet and ankles but fought on because no major artery had been hit.
Then I can recount to you the story of a former Green Beret who shot a burglar in the face twice with a .22 and killed him (and was then put on “trial” by his former comrades for using an inadequate sidearm, for which he was acquitted unanimously). Or the man who fired his handgun at a burglar and floored him despite the gun being loaded with blanks.
It is precisely because of the foibles of these kind of cases that we must only use them when looking at the bigger picture and put them into the context of the scenario.
And while the 4.5mm round may not sound impressive, a 4.5x27mm Hornady will achieve muzzle velocities in the 2,300-500 ft per second region and will comfortably rip through flesh, bone, organs and blood vessels at reasonable ranges. The slightly longer center fire rounds (35mm cartridge) will achieve typical muzzle velocities in excess of 4,000 ft per second.
Such rounds would be more than adequate for killing human beings. The fact that they could be carried in much larger quantities and likely fired at a much higher rate makes them perfectly suitable for consideration, not least because casualties tend to increase as the weight of fire increases, or when an enemy can be pinned down and then attacked with heavier weapons like mortars.
@ Ace R
Flechette’s have their own problems.
Did someone say guided bullets
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/self-guided-bullet
@ Jed – talking about grenade effectiveness:
http://www.g2mil.com/magbomb.htm
Think of it as a stick grenade but the stick is also full of explosive.
Either you are “spray & pray” in which case lots of light bullets are the only way you can carry enough ammo, or you are a fan of “The deer hunter” one shot,one kill. That needs a 30-06 with a scope, or similar(my fantasy 7.7×52).
This post seems split between the two philosophies. Given the improvements in sights lately & the fondness of grasping lawyers to sue for collateral damage, I think the one shot, one kill could gain traction.
I repeat the 7.62×51 is nearly ok. My first choice would be a slightly hotter +P round, but as idiots would put that in old weapons & blow them up, hence the tiny increase in size to stop that happening.
I cannot understand why nobody has made a .338 Lapua machinegun. Great for fixed positions/vehicle mounts, but too heavy for infantry to lug miles.
Chris B said “On this note I come back to “Infantry Attacks” by Erwin Rommel, (cannot speak highly enough of this war diary). Time after time (and this in the age of high powered bolt-action rifles 1914-18) the rate of fire was a big deciding factor in engagements, along with the support of rapid fire machine guns and artillery/mortars.”
Yes. The main armament of the US tanks in Europe was the machine gun as crews hosed down every piece of cover that came into view that posed a threat.
how long does it take to locate, aim at and shoot with a big rifle through optics?
Cant imagine its viable against pkm harrasing fire
It takes a bit as you have to account for droppage and windage to adjust your aiming point. However, since that idiot with the PKM isn’t aiming, he’s the one in trouble. As I said, good fire must account for droppage and windage, if he isn’t accounting for that, his rounds are dropping low.
John Hartley,
You keep repeating that the 7.62NATO isn’t good enough, but could you please lets us know why?
My favour for the intermediate round (6-7mm) is that it provides a good mix of light cartridge and accuracy at range in the hands of the average soldier, either in a rifle or a machine gun.
fred, think he mentioned that the 7.62 was neither here nor there, too big for assault rifles, overmatched by superbig rounds in sniper rifles and HMGs.
Me? I think it’s just right with the right support systems and roles.
Back to LSAT, it’s not going anywhere, same reason as the Dover Devil/M2 replacement.
1) They have heaps of SAWs, all configured for 5.56. And heaps of 5.56.
2) They have a distinct lack of heaps of money. And heaps of IOUs.
Maybe a good idea, but the STANAG the US forced on the rest of the world is now going to turn around and bite it.
The 7.62×51 was no ones first choice. Many wanted to keep the big old 30-06, while others wanted the smaller .280 British. 7.62×51 was a committee compromise. Too heavy for AK sized assault rifles, but slightly lacking range & knockdown for support roles.
How long to aim & fire a 7.7×52/30-06 rifle with optic? Pretty much the same as a 5.56 if you want to be accurate & not shoot an innocent civilian walking by.
I’m still in the dark here. The 7.62NATO is lethal and effective to about a mile from a machine gun (and probably still lethal for a somewhat greater distance). Deliberate aimed shots are limited by dispersion to half a mile.
What support roles did you have in mind?
Apologies if this is old news, but it’s new news to me. Guided 7.62 bullets: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810107
That throwaway phrase “engineering issues” immediately makes me have some doubts and put an ISD at least 5 years out and only a 50:50 chance on it, but the engineering principles appear reasonable. Clearly not aimed at the average section soldier, but for specialised applications and sniping why not? It should be scalable to 0.5 inch which would give some serious punch for materiel targets, or just make sure that dictator really is dead at 3 kms.
TD, I was going to have a long rant on the subject, but decided against it.
Given all the talk of new types of ammunition and weapons, can we have a post on ones we should never have got rid of that could be used in Afghanistan today?
Mr Fred
Are you aware of the .338 Federal? A maxed out 7.62×51. Higher pressure, becoming popular with hunters, as it is the most powerful cartridge that does not breach the Bisley 4500Joule limit, or need a long action. Out to 400m it is a fine humane killer of deer. If it was flat shooting, I would want it to replace 7.62.
My fantasy 7.7×52 is to replicate the power of the .338 Federal in a flatter shooting round.
Look 7.62×51 & 7.7×52 do the same job, but the fantasy 7.7 round would have slightly more knockdown & range,& be flatter shooting.
Howabout carrying this one around, rather than MGs
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/12/21/noreen-bad-news-338-lapua-semi-auto-ar-style-rifle
- the mag is only for ten so the temptation to let loose all of the ammo is controlled, but range certainly will be good
Perhaps I should clarify my position.
If we’re talking about what round you want to give to someone like a sniper then I’d say you want the largest round from the largest weapon with the most powerful optics that the man can practically carry and perform his tasks.
But when we’re talking about a general section weapon, we’re talking about a weapon that generally speaking is unlikely to be used on targets at ranges in excess of 300 yards. At the same time, it’s most likely to be used in situations where volume of rapidly delivered, reasonably accurate fire is the key determining factor (suppression).
Really the 5.56 is probably adequate as it is. If you’re going to inovate then it should really be to make the 5.56 lighter, perhaps by shaving the case down to 40mm instead of 45mm. But given the ubiquity of the 5.56 and all the weapons and kit designed around this calibre, it’s probably not worthwhile switching to a new calibre.
John Hartley,
Sorry to keep asking questions, but there is a key piece of reasoning missing in my mind as to why a product improved 7.62NATO is required.
What job does the 7.7NATO+ do? Your requirement so far, as nearly as I can determine, is for a marksman role rather than the standard infantry weapon. Is that correct? My personal interest is the driving requirements behind acquisitions, either actual or, more particularly, proposed. As such I imagine my repeated phrase “but what do you want it to DO?” may well get old.
Under 6-800m, I suggest that the sharpshooter role can be fulfilled by an accurised version of a standard, intermediate calibre rifle. Above this would be the preserve of specialists with specialist equipment.
I do agree that the 7.62 NATO is all right as a round, no need to force it to the edge of it’s performance envelope. Remember that higher peak pressures might not go too well with guns over time.
One of the reasons why I’m such a fan of the Ultimax SAW is that it proves that you can get rifle like accuracy out of a SAW. If the designer’s quote was correct on his tests, the recoil system reduces peak impulse by 3/4, stretching it out over time. I’m thinking that if it can be applied to the 7.62 NATO, you might be able to get M-16 level recoil out of a 7.62 weapon. This will make it feasible as a GPMG and a marksman weapon.
Mr Fred
If we say nothing can be improved, so why bother, then we would still be issuing the Brown Bess musket or bow & arrow.
I think you can & should improve.
Watching the TV prog on R Marines in Afghanistan, then those armed with 5.56 are no quicker to the wall than those armed with 7.62, when the alert goes up.
Using the example of the .338 Federal, we can see that the 7.62 can take a useful power hike. If that means a flatter shooting bullet with more clout when it hits the target, then what is wrong with that?
Flatter shooting means greater chance of a hit at 400m+.
I am not saying we should chuck away all our 7.62 today, but chances are NATO will look at smallarms calibres in the next decade when the existing weapons wear out. That is the optimum time to change.
@ John H
I watched that programme too. Did you notice that the Marine claiming the long range kill in the contact was issued with L129A1?
John Hartley,
I don’t think that I said that we should not innovate and improve. In point of fact I rather think that I am advocating more innovation and improvement than you are.
There seems to be an element regarding speed of reaction inherent in different calibres that you raise in your comments as an argument against… something. Again, I don’t recall claiming that the 7.62NATO (or 7.7NATO+) was any slower to shoulder or shoot. That isn’t my concern with your proposal.
The 7.62mm NATO can be improved. This is true of many things, but the question must remain, why would you want to? If I may summarise my understanding of your position: The 7.7NATO+ travels faster, thereby having a flatter trajectory and reducing ranging errors, and carries more energy to the target.
My counter to that that the 7.62NATO is a cartridge that is heavy and with a stout recoil, issues that would be exacerbated by a hotter round. In addition, a hotter round means more barrel wear. While a civilian might tolerate this, it is less acceptable to a military user, especially if it were intended for a machine gun. (what is it for, by the way?)
An intermediate cartridge, as far as I can tell, offers a way to deliver enough energy, with acceptable accuracy, to a target that the user is capable of hitting, with reduced ammunition weight and lessened recoil, allowing a lighter rifle.
While I don’t think that you’ll find a soldier who will agree that more firepower isn’t better, I doubt that you’ll find one who won’t complain about extra kilograms. If an intermediate calibre offers a lighter weapon and ammunition and maintains a range and consistency of the 7.62NATO*, where is the value in making a heavier, harder recoiling version of a cartridge that is already heavier and with stouter recoil than it needs to do the job – to whit, allowing an infantry section to engage targets with accurate and effective fire out to perhaps 800m and provide a common machine gun that, tripod mounted, will reach out beyond a kilometre.
* Most posited intermediate calibres in the 6-7mm range claim ballistic performance similar or superior to 7.62mm M80 ball.
I suspect the best compromise is as Mr.fred says, an intermediate 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC for rifles and section MG’s for up to 800m, and something bigger for sniper, Coy level SF and AFV coax use, ranging out to 2000m maybe. .338 Lapua is already in use, but you have to wonder whether the SF and coax role might be better filled by 40mm high velocity grenades?
The science for Mr. fred’s closing statement is on the last page of this http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
- nicely tabulated
- the superior (green curve) defies belief (well, with non-specialists, like myself)
The latter of
“6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC”
does not do that spectacularly in the linked source
Mr Fred.
One of the uses for a 7.62+/7.7, would be as a helicopter flexible gpmg. Existing 7.62 slightly lacks range, meaning the helicopter may be slightly closer to the enemy than wise. Of course they could go to .50 cal M2, but that is a much heavier gun.
I fear one intermediate calibre would fall between two stools. Too heavy for light personal weapons, too light for sniping/support roles.
Having looked at the 6.5mm Grendel, that looks like it can do anything the 7.62NATO can do, but better. The logic seems quite sensible – a good ballistic coefficient keeps the bullet supersonic for a greater distance.
Regarding the sniping role, I would not suggest that the intermediate cartridge be used for that. It’s a specialist role with specialist weapons, so that could continue using .338 Lapua magnum (8.6×70) or whatever else turns up as suitable. Support weapons are currently a heterogeneous mix of 7.62NATO, 12.7×99 and 40×53. The 7.62NATO would be replaced with the intermediate (6.5mm Grendel, perhaps) with little appreciable loss in performance while the 12.7 and 40mm weapons could be retained. A .338 machinegun would be interesting as a lightweight 12.7 substitute, if money is little object.
The vehicle mounted MG is a conundrum. You want lots of ammo and the capability to fire out to multiple km ranges, which are conflicting requirements. If you could replicate the design philosophy of the Grendel in something the size of a 7.62 case then that might do it, or go for the 7.7NATO+. Vehicles with specialist ammo has precedent – the Royal Armoured Corps went through a World War with a 7.92BESA while the rest of the Armed forces used .303. Or, you could stick with a 6.5mm GPMG for coaxial and flex mounts and use other systems to fill in the gap, like different ammunition for the main armament.
I am more than happy for 6.5mm to replace 5.56, but I doubt it could replace 7.62mm.
Likewise, I doubt there would be any need for 7.62mm NATO if we adopt a decent intermediate round.
@John Hartley,
The 6.5 mm Grendel and Remington 6.8 mm SPC are both interesting medium calibre developments. The Canadian Armed Forces are currently evaluating the latter with a view to replacing 5.56 mm completely. While this will provide assured lethality to 300-400 metres, the 6.8 mm SPC cannot replace the 7.62 mm round because it won’t reach much beyond 400 m.
The 6.5 mm Grendel ballistically exceeds NATO 7.62 mm at 1,000 metres, but its lethality (ability to transfer its energy into the target may not be sufficient to provide reliable incapacitation enough of the time. The case is also short and fat, which may make belt feed for machines difficult. So, I agree that the 6.5 mm Grendel is not the right round to replace 7.62 mm or 5.56 mm.
However, 6.5 mm as a calibre could be – it is all about bullet design. 6.5 mm should be fine if you have lead core bullet with high BC. if you decide to go with a lead free green round, a long, high BC 6.8 mm round may be the best way to go.
The important thing to remember in this discussion is that 7.62 mm does the job very, very well. it is powerful, reliable and combat proven. No question marks hang over its performance. The issue is weight and recoil.
With 5.56 mm range, lethality, wind drift, barrier penetration, suppressive effect all continue to cause soldiers to doubt its efficacy.
If you can produce a round what does exactly what 7.62 mm does at 1,000 metres, but weighs 30% less – you’re onto a winner.
Monty,
What makes a short, fat case difficult to feed into a machine gun? GMGs seem to work well enough and are the epitome of short, fat cases.
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest one round over another in the intermediate range, but the concept of the grendel seems to be sensible. A high BC bullet to obtain range and retain energy until it hits the target rather than chase a very difficult to define “lethality”.
In a twist worthy of Ronnie Corbett, this brings us back to an advantage for a telescoped round – being able to fit a long, high BC projectile in a short overall length.
That said, the first step has to be to change calibre, rather than trying to do everything at once.
I doubt one super 6.5 will replace both 5.56 & 7.62mm. It would be too powerful for light weapons, while lacking clout for heavier support weapons.
I am not against the 7.62, but the .338 Federal proved there is development room in this case, so why not use it?
John Hartley,
Why do you doubt it? It is possible to make a cartridge in the 6.5-7mm range that has substantially less recoil energy than a 7.62NATO, weighs much less but outperforms it at range. The current available cartridges may not be optimum but the potential is there. Ballistically, a 6.5-7mm bullet can do anything a 7.62NATO can do while remaining small, light and controllable enough to be used to replace 5.56NATO.
A rifle and a GPMG in an intermediate calibre would be able to provide a universal cartridge that will do nearly everything that the current two NATO calibres do.
mr fred.
Our guys with 6.5, while enemy has 7.62x54R? Not good for morale.
Why? I f you get the proportions right, a 6.5-7mm round will outrange the 7.62x54R, shooting flatter and further.
Can you even tell the difference whilst being shot at? Not having been on a two-way range I wouldn’t know. Maybe between 7.62 and .50, but between 7.62 and 6-7mm?
Add to that you can carry more 6.5 for a given weight and volume and it’ll be the guys carrying the Russian round who’ll be feeling sad.
Armies with 6.5 rifles have always ended up introducing heavier 7.35+ rifles as replacements.
Combat experience beats trendy theory.
“Combat experience beats trendy theory”
No offence, but combat experience overwhelmingly suggests that armies should shift to smaller, ligher rounds for section personal weapons and light machine guns. Not 7.62mm rounds.
Some examples that I can think of:
6.5×52 Carcano (in fact I suspect that it is the precise one you refer to). Poor performance at range could be due to to the ballistic shape of the projectile – IIRC it is a round-nose bullet
6.5×55 Mauser. Used by the Swedes and replaced by the 7.62NATO for commonality purposes rather than lack or performance. The 6.5mm round is still very popular for sports shooting.
6.5×50 Arisaka. Felt to be underpowered in comparison to Western .30 rounds. Medical reports from their opponents differed though*
There might be something in it, but at the same time:
* These cartridges are all a century old, some bear limitations in metallurgy, powder and ballistics technology.
* These cartridges and the decision to increase the calibre relates in two cases to bolt-action rifles and in one case to a standardisation decision which can be ignored.
Combat experience only counts when properly sifted through Operational Analysis, otherwise it is a bunch of anecdotes.
You need ballistic and metallurgic theory to design a round and scientific theory to determine which one you want.
“Let’s have what worked a hundred years ago” is all very well if you do not want to advance. An alternative methodology that has gained acceptance over the past century or two is that of scientific theory. Perhaps that is a bit “trendy” but it does seem to have results.
* http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm
chrisb
I am starting to wonder if the light cartridge could be lighter, Knight Armament 6×35 comes to mind. In a small bullpup, similar in size to the Walther .22lr bullpup, it would be a very handy weapon. A 21C M1 carbine(but better).
Still need a 7.62+/7.7 for the long range/support/helicopter stuff though.
A bullpup rifle in my fantasy 7.7, could have a barrel long enough to tame the blast, a tuned semi auto action & decelerator recoil pad to keep recoil acceptable, & be made in lightweight materials(carbon fibre/Scandium,etc) to keep it luggable.
John,
It seems that you are advocating a scheme put forward by William Owen where the two-calibre split is retained but the light is made lighter and more specialist weapons are issued to throw HE or each soldier can carry more ammo for specialist weapons.
http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf
Can you explain what you mean by:
a) Long Range
b) Support
c) Helicopter
@ JH
Why a 6x35mm? You might as well have a 4.5x35mm. You’d be looking at a much lighter cartridge (so increased ammunition carriage), much lower recoil (good for automatic fire) and probably more range over a flatter trajectory..
A 4.5x35mm round could probably top 4,500 ft/sec with the right barrel, and would certainly be enough to ruin anyones day.
chrisb
6×35 is as small as I am willing to go. If you feel safe with an airgun calibre, well that is your choice, but I would not sleep at night if I sent guys into battle with a pop gun.
A 4.5mm wide bullet by what, multiple times that in length, travelling at 4,500 ft/sec? There’s more than a little difference between that and an airgun pellet.
Are you going to volunteer to take a test shot at 200 yards?
Well, it could be cleared up by the old chestnut:
What are you trying to do with it?