The U.S. Army Is Testing a Bigger (And Deadlier) Bullet

[rangerrebew]

The U.S. Army Is Testing a Bigger (And Deadlier) Bullet
 

Washington's enemies won't be happy.
Task and Purpose [2]Jeff Schogol [3]

The round itself is not the biggest technical hurdle to be overcome, Donahue said. Both the automatic rifle that will replace the SAW and the new carbine will have increased chamber pressure and digital sights that “are probably a bigger deal” than the bullet that they will chamber.

For decades the U.S. military’s rifles and machine guns have chambered either 5.56mm or 7.62mm rounds. Now, the Army’s newest weapons are being tested to fire a new caliber bullet that’s faster and more accurate to give soldiers an edge over their adversaries.
 
Source URL (retrieved on May 12, 2018): http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-testing-bigger-deadlier-bullet-25781

[Oceander]

6.8mm round.

[Elderberry]

Since the bullet’s casing would not be made out of metal, the Army would also have to control the heat to keep the casings from melting.

Sounds like a big problem for the M249. Currently: The sustained rate of fire is 85 rpm with no barrel change. Rapid fire is 200 rpm with a barrel change after 2 minutes.

Instead of worrying about cooking off rounds, the worry will be a round melting and fouling the chamber.

[sneakypete]

I solved their new battle rifle and long range bullet problem for them a year or so ago,and even did it cheaply,yet nobody wants to listen. Probably because there aren't millions of dollars in development money to scam out of the military budget.

Here is the solution. Have the senior purchase officer in the Army call FN in Belgium and say "I would like to order a ship load (NOT a misspelling for those of you with THAT type of mind!)
of FN-FAL's chambered for the 7x57mm Mauser round."  Hell,the adjustable gas system is a key design point for the system,so the one rifle can reliably handle a variety of bullet weights. Have the company armorer cut the chamber a little deeper for the heavier bullets,and you have a fine sniper rifle. Don't need it for a sniper rifle,no problem. Adjust the gas system and it will shoot the lighter bullets with no problems.

This is a rifle that has been used by over 90 countries as a main battle rifle,and WOULD have been used by the US instead of the M-14 if there hadn't been a "MUST buy American" policy in place at that time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

WHY does the military keep trying to re-invent the wheel,and bill the taxpayers for it?

Yeah,the 5.56 round was ok for less than 300 yard shots and jungle warfare,but with the wide-open ranges in the Muddle East,the military needs a rifle that chambers a round that is longer and heavier so it will shoot further and won't get blown around by the wind so badly. The 7x57mm Mauser round will fit that bill nicely,and has the added bonus of already being an inventory item in the FN warehouses. No millions of dollars and months of testing to get it ready for production. Make a freaking phone call,tell them what you want,how many thousands you want in the initial order,and the unit price including magazines,spare parts,and shipping.

It really IS that freaking simple. Hang up the phone,sign a purchase order,and the first shipment will be on it's way to the US in a week.

[dfwgator]

Jocelyn Elders won't be happy.

[Elderberry]

I am a big fan of the 7x57. I own 2. A 95 Mauser and a 98 Mauser. My son owns a FN-FAL. It is one fine Battle Rifle. He also has a FN-SCAR-H. They wouldn't go wrong with that rifle either.

I think plastic cased ammo would be a big mistake.

[sneakypete]

I am a big fan of the 7x57. I own 2. A 95 Mauser and a 98 Mauser. My son owns a FN-FAL. It is one fine Battle Rifle. He also has a FN-SCAR-H. They wouldn't go wrong with that rifle either.

Doan no nuttin bout no FN-SCAR-H,but the FN-FAL is a pretty damn hard act to beat. We really,REALLY should have used it instead of the M-14.

And whatever new rifle they decide to use after all the bribe offers have came in and bank accounts verified will not be ONE IOTA more reliable or accurate,and will cost 2 or 3 times as much as a FN-FAL.

I think plastic cased ammo would be a big mistake.

Yeah,that's one way of putting it. What happens to plastic when it gets hot,like in a rifle chamber that in military rifles can get hot enough to "cook off" (fire) rounds without having to pull the trigger?

[Elderberry]

@sneakypete

I came across a good article on the 7X57.

https://www.ballisticstudies.com/Knowledgebase/7x57.html

[dfwgator]

Jocelyn Elders would not approve...

! No longer available

[Bigun]

6.8mm round.

The absolutely best there is IMHO.  Plastic cases no!

[Elderberry]

I hate to split hairs, but I prefer the 6.5mm. I may be biased though, I have two. The 6.5x47 and the 6.5Grendel.

[sneakypete]

The absolutely best there is IMHO.  Plastic cases no!

@Bigun

6.8,meh. Re-inventing the wheel. Military rifles are meant to kill humans,who are very soft-skinned and easy to kill. All you can kill anybody or anything is dead,and the 7x57 has been doing that for well over a century using mostly sub-par loads. Mate it with a FN-FAL that has an adjustable gas system,and you have the ideal infantry rifle.

True,even with the 162 grain bullets it's not going to be suitable for the half-mile + shots todays snipers are making in the deserts and mounts with the 50 cal BMG round,but neither will anything else. Besides,sniping is a specialized business,and the 50 cal BMG round isn't ideal for all situations,either. In some situations,a 300,35,or .375 caliber belted magnum round may be a better choice. You fit the tool to the job,not the job to the tool.

For an issue infantry rifle,there MUST be compromises made. The .223 round was fine for the jungles in Asia,but ain't worth a damn for 500 meter + shots across a valley floor. The 7x57 with the long SPBT bullet designs of today would be a FINE addition to a typical infantry squad so they can make the long shots if they have to,and for normal use can adjust the gas system and go back to shooting the lighter bullets when the long range shots aren't needed.

Still,there ain't no money to be made from government contracts selling cheap 7x57 military loads to the Defense Dept,so sombody is going to develop a new load that is 50 fps faster and drops a quarter inch less at 500 meters,and get stinking,filthy rich from goobermint contracts.

[sneakypete]

I hate to split hairs, but I prefer the 6.5mm. I may be biased though, I have two. The 6.5x47 and the 6.5Grendel.

@Elderberry

The 6.5 MM is a hard-hitting round,as the Japanese proved in WW-2,but for really long range shots you need a slightly larger bore. That's where the 7x57 comes in as the compromise winner,as well as a definite budget winner.

[Elderberry]

Special Operators Getting A New Round For Their Precision Rifles And An 'Assault' Machine Gun
The two types of weapons will both fire the same 6.5mm cartridge, which offers better range and accuracy over existing ammunition.

By Joseph TrevithickMay 10, 2018

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20770/special-operators-getting-a-new-round-for-their-precision-rifles-and-an-assault-machine-gun

U.S. Special Operations Command has revealed plans to replace a number of precision rifles across its components that use NATO-standard 7.62mm ammunition with new guns chambered for a smaller cartridge, the 6.5mm Creedmoor. It has also disclosed that it is developing a new “assault” machine gun that fires the same round, which is part of broader efforts to provide longer range, but still relatively lightweight fire support weapons.

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Mark Owens, who is presently the Program Manager for Ammo, Weapons and Visual Augmentation Systems at Special Operations Command, gave the new details during an unclassified briefing at the National Defense Industry Association’s annual Armaments Conference earlier in May 2018. That special operations forces were considering the 6.5mm cartridge for precision weapons first emerged in 2017, but Soldier Systems Daily was first to report that this effort now includes a light machine gun, as well.

According to Owens’ presentation, in testing in 2017, special operators shooting rifles modified to fire 6.5mm Creedmoor were twice as likely to hit their targets compared those using control guns in the existing 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. Special Operations Command also evaluated .260 Remington and collected data on the performance of all three types of ammunition in the FN Mk 20 Mod 0 Sniper Support Rifle, the Knight’s Armament Company M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS), and Heckler and Koch M110A1 Compact Semi-Automatic Sniper System (CSASS).

The testing also showed that the 6.5mm versions of the weapons have 40 percent greater range and less recoil than their 7.62mm counterparts. The round was 30 percent less susceptible to wind drift, as well, making it more precise at those distances.

[Bigun]

@Bigun

6.8,meh. Re-inventing the wheel. Military rifles are meant to kill humans,who are very soft-skinned and easy to kill. All you can kill anybody or anything is dead,and the 7x57 has been doing that for well over a century using mostly sub-par loads. Mate it with a FN-FAL that has an adjustable gas system,and you have the ideal infantry rifle.

True,even with the 162 grain bullets it's not going to be suitable for the half-mile + shots todays snipers are making in the deserts and mounts with the 50 cal BMG round,but neither will anything else. Besides,sniping is a specialized business,and the 50 cal BMG round isn't ideal for all situations,either. In some situations,a 300,35,or .375 caliber belted magnum round may be a better choice. You fit the tool to the job,not the job to the tool.

For an issue infantry rifle,there MUST be compromises made. The .223 round was fine for the jungles in Asia,but ain't worth a damn for 500 meter + shots across a valley floor. The 7x57 with the long SPBT bullet designs of today would be a FINE addition to a typical infantry squad so they can make the long shots if they have to,and for normal use can adjust the gas system and go back to shooting the lighter bullets when the long range shots aren't needed.

Still,there ain't no money to be made from government contracts selling cheap 7x57 military loads to the Defense Dept,so sombody is going to develop a new load that is 50 fps faster and drops a quarter inch less at 500 meters,and get stinking,filthy rich from goobermint contracts.

@ sneakypete

There is no round or rifle that is perfect for every situation and there never has been but the charistics of a 6.8mm bullet make it the one I personally would select for service rifles IF we are intent on throwing out the current 7.62NATO round which, to me, is an entirely stupid move.

PS.  I do not disagree with anything you said about the FN-FAL especially in its original. 280 caliber.

[Elderberry]

PS.  I do not disagree with anything you said about the FN-FAL especially in its original. 280 caliber.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/

This first FAL was chambered for the .280/30 cartridge, which was a compromise cartridge using the .280 (7mm) bore diameter believed ideal by the British at the time and the general case dimensions of the American T65 cartridge (which would become the 7.62×51 NATO). It fired a 140 grain bullet at 2400 fps, with the intention of being an intermediate cartridge that could be used accurately with full-auto shoulder fire. The rifle itself was remarkably similar to the final production versions of the FAL, differing only in details. The locking and operating mechanisms were well enough developed in the early design that they did not need to be changed throughout later development.

Testing of this rifle took place in 1950 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland,alongside the EM2 (also in .280/30 caliber) and the American T25, a development of the M1 Garand chambered for the T65 .30-caliber cartridge. The FAL performed well in testing, and was much admired by the British troops present. It also gained respect among the Americans for reliability. In fairness to the T25 rifle, the T65 ammunition used at the trials was an experimental batch and had consistency problems which led to malfunctions in the T25.

There were three written American objections to the .280 FAL, and one unwritten. The written complaints were its low velocity, poor arctic performance, and small bullet volume. The low velocity was deliberate to improve automatic fire accuracy, but the Americans were concerned that when firing at 700 yards the bullet would be 8 feet high at 400 yards, thus entirely missing a target at that distance. The British counterpoint to this was to note that the declared maximum range of the round was 600 yards. Considering the USSR as the most anticipated enemy at the time, arctic combat was a more significant concern than today, and low temperatures would only exacerbate the trajectory issues claimed by the American observers. Finally, the US military had a stated need for tracer and observation (explosive) cartridges for its infantry rifle, and it was claimed that the 7mm bore was too small to contain enough material to make effective projectiles of these types (later experience would prove this claim wrong). The major unwritten objection to the FAL was that it was not an American development. The head of the US Ordnance R&D, Colonel Rene Studler, was fundamentally unwilling to adopt a foreign rifle design.

Unfortunately, a major opportunity to reach a compromise was lost when the American and British delegations came to different understandings of the testing results. The British came away with the understanding that the .280 cartridge needed further development, while the American take-away was that the .280 was fundamentally unsound.

[Bigun]

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/prototype-280-fal/

This first FAL was chambered for the .280/30 cartridge, which was a compromise cartridge using the .280 (7mm) bore diameter believed ideal by the British at the time and the general case dimensions of the American T65 cartridge (which would become the 7.62×51 NATO). It fired a 140 grain bullet at 2400 fps, with the intention of being an intermediate cartridge that could be used accurately with full-auto shoulder fire. The rifle itself was remarkably similar to the final production versions of the FAL, differing only in details. The locking and operating mechanisms were well enough developed in the early design that they did not need to be changed throughout later development.

Testing of this rifle took place in 1950 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland,alongside the EM2 (also in .280/30 caliber) and the American T25, a development of the M1 Garand chambered for the T65 .30-caliber cartridge. The FAL performed well in testing, and was much admired by the British troops present. It also gained respect among the Americans for reliability. In fairness to the T25 rifle, the T65 ammunition used at the trials was an experimental batch and had consistency problems which led to malfunctions in the T25.

There were three written American objections to the .280 FAL, and one unwritten. The written complaints were its low velocity, poor arctic performance, and small bullet volume. The low velocity was deliberate to improve automatic fire accuracy, but the Americans were concerned that when firing at 700 yards the bullet would be 8 feet high at 400 yards, thus entirely missing a target at that distance. The British counterpoint to this was to note that the declared maximum range of the round was 600 yards. Considering the USSR as the most anticipated enemy at the time, arctic combat was a more significant concern than today, and low temperatures would only exacerbate the trajectory issues claimed by the American observers. Finally, the US military had a stated need for tracer and observation (explosive) cartridges for its infantry rifle, and it was claimed that the 7mm bore was too small to contain enough material to make effective projectiles of these types (later experience would prove this claim wrong). The major unwritten objection to the FAL was that it was not an American development. The head of the US Ordnance R&D, Colonel Rene Studler, was fundamentally unwilling to adopt a foreign rifle design.

Unfortunately, a major opportunity to reach a compromise was lost when the American and British delegations came to different understandings of the testing results. The British came away with the understanding that the .280 cartridge needed further development, while the American take-away was that the .280 was fundamentally unsound.

Well,  I obviously have a different opinion.  But not as to the intentional velocity restrictions which, I believe,  could have been easily overcome.

[Elderberry]

I don't have a problem with 7mm. I own two. I just think that 6.5mm beats them out. So the first AR-15 I built was in 6.5mm. I just completed building another upper for it. This one is in .358. I know the military wants to go bigger than .223. Probably not that big though.

[sneakypete]

@ sneakypete

There is no round or rifle that is perfect for every situation and there never has been but the charistics of a 6.8mm bullet make it the one I personally would select for service rifles IF we are intent on throwing out the current 7.62NATO round which, to me, is an entirely stupid move.

@Bigun

I'd with ya on all that. The 7.62 is a fine round for crew-served weapons mounted in vehicles and on perimeters. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater!

I just honestly don't see any sense in spending millions of dollars to develop a new weapons system in a caliber that is only marginally more effective at close range than the old 7x57 mm round,and not as good at long range.

Especially when someone from the Pentagram procurement office can just pick up the phone and call FN in Belgium and say something like "Uhhh,I want to buy 10 thousand 7x57 FN-FALS,with bayonets,cleaning equipment,and spare parts.",and have the first shipment packed up and heading to the US in a week. Just look at all the taxpayer money being pissed away for nothing more than a marginal improvement over the 7x57 in SOME areas.

As for the FN-FAL itself,I am going to laugh at you if you tell me they are going to buy a better one. They can easily buy a new rifle,and maybe even one as reliable as a FN-FAL,but they damn sure ain't going to buy a better one when it comes to durability,accuracy,and reliability for infantry warfare. The FN-FAL is so freaking close to perfect it's scary,and you just can't beat perfect.

BUT.....,there is no kickbacks to politicians for buying them,and there are no union jobs in the northeast for the pols to make any money from if the US Military goes FN-FAL in 7x57. Hell,there ain't even any development funds or fact-finding trips to make. It already exists,and has existed for decades. FN already has all the tooling on hand to make them,and can start pumping them out and shipping them the same week the order is placed.

Where is the fun in that?

[sneakypete]

Well,  I obviously have a different opinion.  But not as to the intentional velocity restrictions which, I believe,  could have been easily overcome.

@Bigun

And has been. Hell,the FN-FAL has an adjustable gas system,so you can open it up or close it down some to adjust to the loads you are shooting. I have seen some Argentine and Israeli surplus 7.62 ammo that was SMOKING coming out the barrel. LOTS hotter than GI loads. You just adjust the gas system to work with the loads you are shooting.

Plus,it has to be said that there has been massive improvements in gun powder in the last 3 or 4 decades.

In the end we all know what they are going to do,which is piss away a TON of taxpayer money to buy something that is only marginally "better" than the existing FN-FAL in 7x57 so they can all justify having their jobs,and to make sure the "right" people get the contracts.

Now,if any of you can think of an existing rifle that is better than the FN-FAL as an issue infantry battle rifle,PLEASE speak up.

BTW,I'm still personally pissed we got rid of "old slabsides" and went to the 9mm Beretta. Whoever was most responsible for that brain fart needs to be beaten severely every time he pops up in public.

[sneakypete]

I don't have a problem with 7mm. I own two. I just think that 6.5mm beats them out. So the first AR-15 I built was in 6.5mm. I just completed building another upper for it. This one is in .358. I know the military wants to go bigger than .223. Probably not that big though.

@Elderberry

What are you using for cases? Powder? Bullet weights and profiles?

[sneakypete]

I don't have a problem with 7mm. I own two. I just think that 6.5mm beats them out. So the first AR-15 I built was in 6.5mm. I just completed building another upper for it. This one is in .358. I know the military wants to go bigger than .223. Probably not that big though.

@Elderberry

Naw,what they are looking for is something that can throw a bullet across a valley that is long enough and heavy enough to be effective when it gets there. The .223 is a good round,but the bullets are so tiny it only takes a puff of wind to send them completely off target,and if they do hit at 700+ meters,they aren't very effective.

BTW,I vaguely remember hearing about a NCO I knew that actually got shot between the eyes with an AK round while on patrol,and it just knocked him out. He looked like hell and couldn't see squat due to the swelling,but that beats the hell out of having your brains run  down your back. AFAIK,he was back on duty the next week.

Could be in was some of the ammo we were salting NVA ammo dumps with in Cambodia and Laos,but most of those rounds were designed to explode and destroy the shooter and the weapon,not go downrange. Weak rounds happen occasionally

[Bigun]

@Bigun

I'd with ya on all that. The 7.62 is a fine round for crew-served weapons mounted in vehicles and on perimeters. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater!

I just honestly don't see any sense in spending millions of dollars to develop a new weapons system in a caliber that is only marginally more effective at close range than the old 7x57 mm round,and not as good at long range.

Especially when someone from the Pentagram procurement office can just pick up the phone and call FN in Belgium and say something like "Uhhh,I want to buy 10 thousand 7x57 FN-FALS,with bayonets,cleaning equipment,and spare parts.",and have the first shipment packed up and heading to the US in a week. Just look at all the taxpayer money being pissed away for nothing more than a marginal improvement over the 7x57 in SOME areas.

As for the FN-FAL itself,I am going to laugh at you if you tell me they are going to buy a better one. They can easily buy a new rifle,and maybe even one as reliable as a FN-FAL,but they damn sure ain't going to buy a better one when it comes to durability,accuracy,and reliability for infantry warfare. The FN-FAL is so freaking close to perfect it's scary,and you just can't beat perfect.

BUT.....,there is no kickbacks to politicians for buying them,and there are no union jobs in the northeast for the pols to make any money from if the US Military goes FN-FAL in 7x57. Hell,there ain't even any development funds or fact-finding trips to make. It already exists,and has existed for decades. FN already has all the tooling on hand to make them,and can start pumping them out and shipping them the same week the order is placed.

Where is the fun in that?

@ sneakypete

I don't think there is much daylight between us on this at all. 

[Bigun]

@Bigun

And has been. Hell,the FN-FAL has an adjustable gas system,so you can open it up or close it down some to adjust to the loads you are shooting. I have seen some Argentine and Israeli surplus 7.62 ammo that was SMOKING coming out the barrel. LOTS hotter than GI loads. You just adjust the gas system to work with the loads you are shooting.

Plus,it has to be said that there has been massive improvements in gun powder in the last 3 or 4 decades.

In the end we all know what they are going to do,which is piss away a TON of taxpayer money to buy something that is only marginally "better" than the existing FN-FAL in 7x57 so they can all justify having their jobs,and to make sure the "right" people get the contracts.

Now,if any of you can think of an existing rifle that is better than the FN-FAL as an issue infantry battle rifle,PLEASE speak up.

BTW,I'm still personally pissed we got rid of "old slabsides" and went to the 9mm Beretta. Whoever was most responsible for that brain fart needs to be beaten severely every time he pops up in public.

Again I agree.   Military procurement is and long has been a huge racket that desperately needs to be dealt with.

[Elderberry]

@Elderberry

What are you using for cases? Powder? Bullet weights and profiles?

@sneakypete

Its the 358Yeti. I am still prepping my first cases(200+) for it. I've done everything for them except I need to prime another 100 or so. It can use any of the .308/30-06 family of cases. I was given a bunch of 270 brass, so that the bulk of what I started with. I chopped cases to around 1.7 at first and final trim was 1.646. COAL 2.295. Dies are currently not available. Hornady is to be supplying more.

So I took a 358 Winchester size die, shortened it .300 and opened up the body just shy of the shoulder with fine sandpaper and fine valve grinding compound. I size with no expander. Then expand with a Sinclair expander die. The specs call for a shoulder datum of 1.364 and I found I could just chamber cases with a shoulder of 1.367. I picked up some 158gr Speer plinkers. I found I had 4 boxes of 180gr Hornady SSP. I also picked up some 200gr Round noses and a box on sale of 225gr Nosler Partitions.

Its an 18 in 1:14 barrel. The bolt and bbl extension is rated 60,000 psi. I plan to stay under 55,000. I'm starting out with AA1680, but I'll have to go with a slower powder to fully load the heavy bullets. I read where one guy is running 310gr cast bullets subsonic.

I should be shooting it next week. Case capacity after fireforming should be 47gr. Its advertised as no fireforming required, though I plan to limit pressure starting out to 45,000 or less.

Posted performance shows 180gr @ 2600fps    200gr @ 2400fps.

And that was with a 16in bbl.

https://mdws.forumchitchat.com/post/yeti-data-thread-post-data-only-8206275?pid=1303591365