Wild World Search For New Case Design

[relictrader]

It seems everyone is looking for a new case for AUTO rifles.
Stateside returning military say they are using AK's for close mop-up work.THey say AR's won't stop a insergent quickly enough.
AR are favored for long range 300 yd and up firefights.
I'm interested as well as most goverments in the autoloader that can shoot the 500BC or greater cases that will load and feed in AR Mags and is effecient at longer ranges.
TUBBS approach is to shoot the same weight bullet at all distances,for 100,200 yds are easy but farther out can be tricky.
What would work?...any thoughts?

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

You're talking about shoulder fired Infantry weapons, right?

First of all, I don't believe that there will ever be a conventional shoulder fired Infantry rifle,that a soldier can effectively use) that will be capable of firing a bullet even approaching a .500 BC at full automatic fire.

And if such an animal was even remotely possible limiting the cartridge to M16,AR15) magazine size would make it impossible.

As far as stopping an insurgent "quickly enough", the present 77gr. bullet found in the newer Mk262,Mod's 0 & 1) military ammo for the M16 & M4 has been found to be perfectly adequate according to after-action reports coming from both Iraq and Afganistan. The problem is that there's not nearly enough of it to go around! The fact that the Klinton administration permanently shut down five,or six?) of our military ammunition plants might have something to do with that.

 

[relictrader]

The Camp Perry 2007 winner over All Bolt Actions recorded his win with AR15 magazine feed 90gr 6MM high BC rounds and some single feed 105grs.

,stopping an insurgent "quickly enough").....I guess the new party in the White House this time around will be better
prepaired?

Interviewing 140 of his command who felt inadequate, his Marines must have been using the other ammo.

I think some one will have some answers soon.....

 

[relictrader]

,77gr. bullet found in the newer Mk262.............)

Is this the ammo that they say will not work in slower twist
1x8 AR barrels?

 

[7stwhunter]

i used a box of black hills 77grmks,Most all of these were sold out no back order at midway usa because special forces was taking every round black hills could make) and they shot fine in my 1-9 twist ar

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

The Camp Perry 2007 winner over All Bolt Actions recorded his win with AR15 magazine feed 90gr 6MM high BC rounds and some single feed 105grs.

,stopping an insurgent "quickly enough").....I guess the new party in the White House this time around will be better
prepaired?

Interviewing 140 of his command who felt inadequate, his Marines must have been using the other ammo.

I think some one will have some answers soon.....

What the Camp Perry winner used has very little relevence to what will work for the military in a F/A Infantry rifle that must stand up to a whole lot more than the "rigors" of range use.

I don't understand what you're trying to get at with your comment about the "new party in the White House this time around". Please be more specific. Same with "interviewing 140 of his command who felt inadequate". Please elaborate.

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

,77gr. bullet found in the newer Mk262.............)

Is this the ammo that they say will not work in slower twist
1x8 AR barrels?

I've used both the BH commercial version of this ammo and the BH loaded military version,Mk262 Mod 1) which is similar but has a cannelure on the bullet to allow crimping for auto use. It's basically a 77 gr. SMK bullet at about 2750 MV,give or take) from a 20" barrel. I works great in the 1/7 twist GI weapons and my 1/8 twist Service Rifle barrel. I've never tried it in anything with a slower twist.

 

[nonliberal]

I would say The Ar10 which is a .308 would stop an enemy and be good at long range as well, however in full auto would probably recoil a bit much.

So to meet all your criteria I would go with an AR chambered in .260. Less recoil, better ballistics, and hit just as hard at longer range. A 6.5mm 123gr bullet would have a BC in the .5s and a 140 class bullet would be in the .6s. I know this would be managable in full auto because the 7.62x39 ammo fired out of the SKS and AK47s are using between 123 and 150gr bullets.

Just my .02

 

[relictrader]

SPOTCHECK-BILLY,
Thanks for your Email it was interesting,and will study the possibility.

...."new party in the White House this time around"............
The Dem Party is offering us two candidates both of whom are openly in favor of downsizing our forces and banning all sales of Simi-auto firearms in 2009.

......."command who felt inadequate"................
He was referring to the Marine casualties his men took in building to building fighting from "dead but kept fireing back, Pot-head Insurgents",when using 223's.

Thanks STWHUNTER,
That answers my question...the 6MM 95gr &105's key-holed 90 degree's within 15yds in my 6PPC with 1/10 twist.

Nonliberal, thanks for the .260 idea....

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

I would say The Ar10 which is a .308 would stop an enemy and be good at long range as well, however in full auto would probably recoil a bit much.

So to meet all your criteria I would go with an AR chambered in .260. Less recoil, better ballistics, and hit just as hard at longer range. A 6.5mm 123gr bullet would have a BC in the .5s and a 140 class bullet would be in the .6s. I know this would be managable in full auto because the 7.62x39 ammo fired out of the SKS and AK47s are using between 123 and 150gr bullets.

Just my .02

I agree with the idea of using the AR10 platform. However the AR10 is big and heavy. That flies in the face of what is commonly desired as a platform for a main Infantry rifle these days. To say that a .308 in full auto "would probably recoil a bit much" is an understatement. I had the opportunity to fire a USGI M14 in F/A once. I'm an accomplished shooter with four decades of experience, and it was way "too much". Our military was unable to train the average Infantryman to use a F/A M14 back then. Why would anyone think that it would be feasable to do it today?

 

[nonliberal]

Why would anyone think that it would be feasable to do it today?

I pretty much concluded in my response that it would'nt be feasable, thats why I said the .260 with a 120 or 140 class bullet would recoil much less and still beat it in every way. I mentioned the AR10 just as the platform.

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

The USGI M80 7.62 NATO round,aka .308) drives a 147 gr. bullet at +/- 2700 fps MV.

You propose a .260 Rem. case driving 120 gr. to 140 gr. bullets. If these bullets were driven at a respectable velocity the recoil wouldn't be that much less than the .308. At least not enough to allow F/A use where a .308 wouldn't.

Now I'm talking about a cartridge for a main Infantry rifle!A .260 would be great for a specialty rifle like a DMR or a spotters rifle. You'd want a smaller, lighter cartridge for a main Infantry rifle to allow the soldier to carry more ammo - you can never have too much ammo - and to allow a larger magazine capacity. The AR10 platform makes for a rifle that is just too big and heavy to become a main Infantry rifle in this day and age. I think that in order to have something significantly better that what's already in use we'd need to clean the slate and come up with something entirely new.

I won't be holding my breath until that happens

 

[olympian]

For the standard foot soldier, the 6.5 Grendel in an AR-15-type would be a good compromise between portability, projectile weight, and recoil. I have never understood why the armed forces have stayed with the .223 Remington when there are better options now.

The M14/M1A still has its place, at least in my mind.

 

[nonliberal]

Why not just use what the other guys use. A 7.62x39 can obviously be fired in full auto mode and will hit harder than a .223. When used in an AR platform it would always be more accurate than the sloppy AKs. Then you can even use the bad guys ammo when he dont need it anymore.

 

[7stwhunter]

In testig the 6.5 Grendel didnt pass the full auto test where as the 6.8 remspc could actually be a fesible option

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

Why not just use what the other guys use. A 7.62x39 can obviously be fired in full auto mode and will hit harder than a .223. When used in an AR platform it would always be more accurate than the sloppy AKs. Then you can even use the bad guys ammo when he dont need it anymore.

The 7.62x39 is not what most refer to as an accurate cartridge. Good enough for the peasants that it was intended for, but not for a trained marksman at ranges over a couple of hundred yards.

I know two shooters who have attempted to build up accurate 7.62x39's. One was on a custom AK by Krebs, the other was on a Colt AR15. Both were disappointing. You could probably still find some details by doing a search over on the arfcom site. The US military has also experimented along those lines with less than acceptable results.

It appears to me from reading the content of the original post on this thread that the point was to find a cartridge that would match the longer range accuracy of the M16 with the "harder hitting" short range capabilities of the 7.62x39 AK, while still being easy enough for the average Infantryman to fire accurately in F/A mode. I would have to add - a weapon that is light enough and short enough to be handled in modern warfare,getting in and out of Humvees, etc.) with ammo that was small enough in size and light enough in weight to enable a foot soldier to carry a large supply.

That magic cartridge hasn't been invented, at least as of yet!

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

For the standard foot soldier, the 6.5 Grendel in an AR-15-type would be a good compromise between portability, projectile weight, and recoil. I have never understood why the armed forces have stayed with the .223 Remington when there are better options now.

The M14/M1A still has its place, at least in my mind.

I fully agree that the Grendel is a fine little cartridge and offers ballistics that would probably make it a contender, but ....

as 7stwhunter posted above, it has what seem to be insurmountable problems in that it doesn't lend itself to adaptation for F/A feeding from a magazine. Another problem is that AFIK its case design limits magazine capacity, and you want about 30 rds. +/- in a FA Infantry rifle. The fact that it's a proprietary design doesn't help it either.

And I also completely agree that the M14 still has its place, but in the role of a DMR or spotters rifle, and the vast majority of those that have been put back into service have the F/A selector switch locked on S/A.

 

[relictrader]

Quote..........average Infantryman to fire accurately in F/A mode. I would have to add - a weapon that is light enough and short enough to be handled in modern warfare,getting in and out of Humvees, etc.) with ammo that was small enough in size and light enough in weight to enable a foot soldier to carry a large supply..........................

Well Phrased except goverment want's 600yd reliably not 300.
I'm testing a cartage that shot 3 1/4 5 shots at 500yds,and runs wide open simi-auto perfectly,but don't have gun for full auto.

 

[Spotcheck_Billy]

Quote..........average Infantryman to fire accurately in F/A mode. I would have to add - a weapon that is light enough and short enough to be handled in modern warfare,getting in and out of Humvees, etc.) with ammo that was small enough in size and light enough in weight to enable a foot soldier to carry a large supply..........................

Well Phrased except goverment want's 600yd reliably not 300.
I'm testing a cartage that shot 3 1/4 5 shots at 500yds,and runs wide open simi-auto perfectly,but don't have gun for full auto.

I wasn't referencing to what the Gov't wants. What I was alluding to is the fact that the Army only qualifies its Infantrymen out to 300 and the Marines only to 500. On the other hand, the Gov't has a laundry list of other qualifiers for the next main Infantry cartridge, like complete penetration of body armor at 600,or more) meters, etc. Remember that we'll have to make sure that any cartridge that we adapt will also have to meet the STANAG,Standardized NATO Agreement) acceptance. If our allies are not willing to change over we won't either. That's just a fact in this modern world.

But please give us the details of the cartridge that you're testing!

 

[relictrader]

.....Quote....... the details of the cartridge.


It is a 30 Rem case,shortened and reduced to 6mm.It was to be used to win Camp Perry,Palma type matches.