Why doesn't the military just adapt the hybrid case tech into 5.56 and make Uncle Sam's pissing hot loads? Having 3300 FPS out of a 14.5 inch barrel would be nice, no?
Why doesn't the military just adapt the hybrid case tech into 5.56 and make Uncle Sam's pissing hot loads?
Because brass is stupid legacy bullshit and plastic casings are the future.
t. Eugene Stoner
Biggest issue every time it's been tried is heat. Think how hot brass is after you shoot, will literally burn you. That is heat that has been removed from the gun . Plastic cases get warm, but not like brass, so more heat stays in the gun and the gun overheats significantly faster. This has always been the main issue when this stuff is experimented with.
>That is heat that has been removed from the gun . Plastic cases get warm, but not like brass, so more heat stays in the gun and the gun overheats significantly faster.
It's literally the opposite
You can't be serious.
I am
NTA but you're a colossal fricking moron.
One of the primary issues with polymer/plastic/telescoping ammo is high chamber heat, leading to more throat erosion and hell in the steyr test, was even melting the ammo in chamber.
Here's a quick and easy test for you, which you should already know if you ever shot a firearm in your life.
1: Shoot gun 1 time, touch casing, guess what? It's cold
2: keep shooting gun till brass is getting hot to the touch
3: Chamber a empty casing(cause you're moronic and prob nd with a live round) and extract it, guess what? It'll be warm
It's not an insane amount of heat, but it is removing heat from the system which even 5/10% make a big difference in longevity, consistency, and accuracy.
True velocity demonstrated the opposite
So you were a moron. My bad.
You're literally arguing against own case.
You're focusing entirely on the brass as a heat sink, ignoring that it's also a heat conductor.
When you shoot polymer ammo, very little heat is transfered to the chamber, it won't heat up nearly as fast.
Here's an experiment for you. Shoot a brass-cased cartridge. Pick it up. It's hot.
Shoot a polymer-cased cartridge. Pick it up. It's not hot. The polymer insulates the chamber from the hot gases.
Now, the barrel will overall still warm up from the gases as well as friction from the jacket. Whether the failure point of chamber temp vs case material happens earlier in brass vs polymer in the same firing regimen depends on the barrel heat capacity and how long you let the cartridges stay in the chamber. You can cause cook-off in brass cases within hundreds of rounds if you let them sit in the chamber a bit. Nitrocellulose ignition temperature is fairly low, right above 300°F, but it takes time for brass to transfer that from the outside in. It would take even longer for polymer if it didn't just melt first.
It's also a closed bolt problem. Open bolts don't care.
Anon, the heat is generated from the burning powder, which is INSIDE the brass. You want an insulating case because then it won't conduct heat into the chamber. You're mistaking polymer/telescopic ammo with caseless, which has nothing at all to insulate the chamber from the burning powder.
What will that new round do that the current one won't? Other than have absolutely terrible muzzle blast, I mean. It's not like it's going to make people any more dead, have significant AP or long range benefits.
tactifudd cope reaching extraordinary levels
>allow for shorter barrels and suppressors while still maintaining a similar OAL to an unsuppressed rifle
>better terminal effect past 200 yards
>probably better cover defeating capabilities, especially with M855A1 projectiles
>probably won't have much more recoil, which means the training load can actually be used in a 1:1 sense
>way cheaper overall to do compared to adopting a new cartridge for all infantry
>allow for shorter barrels and suppressors while still maintaining a similar OAL to an unsuppressed rifle
You mean necessitate a can that brings the OAL back to the same you started with but now with more mass farther out hurting barrel harmonics and making the gun more difficult to aim. What is the point of cutting the barrel down by almost half if you need a frickhuge can to handle the flash and bang that brings you right back to where you were? What is the point of that? And it does nothing to address the increased barrel wear you will now have.
>better terminal effect past 200 yards
[citation needed]
>probably better cover defeating capabilities, especially with M855A1 projectiles
[citation needed]
>probably won't have much more recoil, which means the training load can actually be used in a 1:1 sense
That's not how momentum works. P=F/A, mv1+Ft=mv2, so spiking the pressure means spiking the force, means higher momentum, means higher recoil. You can't get away from kinematics and impulse-momentum.
>way cheaper overall to do compared to adopting a new cartridge for all infantry
Increasing the pressure means increasing the chamber wall thickness. You would need to buy new, heavier guns to safely use a new pissing hot load that can also be chambered in old guns and blow them up. That's a safety red flag.
There is no raisin to adopt a new ammo or new rifle. The assault rifle is for close in protection and "assaulting" positions. There are specialized weapons like mortars and heavy MGs for distant targets.
Do what the 5.56 is capable of out of a 20" barrel.
imagine 20 inch M193 performance out of a 13.7 barrel
>completely upend your logistical chain and drastically reduce barrel life, make usability less pleasant and make the ammo more expensive
or
>just use a longer barrel
Obviously barrel length is extremely important for operators, they keep cutting the shits shorter and shorter even past the point that it severely impacts lethality.
>for operators
SMG's
>>just use a longer barrel
Even better, use a bullpup
Just sayin'...
>is he gay or European?
so literally do nothing
Go 100 fps faster than a 16 inch barrel?
M193 out of 20" is literal magic and if the M16A1 was around at 3kg of weight nobody would be dreaming about half of the moronic bullshit they do. M855 was a fricking mistake, giving everyone carbines was a fricking mistake.
>M855 was a fricking mistake
M193 effective range: 400 meters
M855 effective range: 1000 meters.
Do I need to say it? Overmatch!
Effectiveness of 22lr...
enough to ruin your day.
>WHATCHA NEED INNOVATION FOR SONNY
it's reductionists like you that make your ancestors roll in their Graves. Shame on you and your inability to improve.
Copper is getting increasingly expensive for one thing.
Fast boolit is cool and all but 5.56 is a bit small for keeping speed at long range
then give two dudes in the squad an M7 and have a machine gunner with the M250, everyone else gets 5.56 2.0. Assault rifles aren't meant to be efficient past 300 yards in the hands of your average joe
What if instead, the Army were to adopt a bullpup chambered in plastic case 6mm ARC with a 20" barrel that's actually shorter than a 13" AR, and has more energy past 500 yards than 7.62 while weighing less than brass case 5.56 and having similar recoil?
That sounds awful.
Will never happen because bullpups suck dog ass and nobody likes them.
How are the new female marines going to handle the recoil?
More likely they will lower the power of the ammo so female recruits can handle the firearm just as well as their male counterparts.
It already happened, it's now 70k psi instead of 80k, same as the commercial hunting ammo.
shut the FRICK up chud you're on the wrong side of history
>REEEEEEEEEEEEE no we can't just put longer barrels on rifles we have we need a new BATTLE RIFLE(tm) with a SMART SCOPE(tm) so Moishe Shekleberg can afford more andrichronome
my idea is cheap and has a long barrel
>NO WE BATTLE RIFLE GANG NOW MANY SHECKLES WILL BE MADE
>misspells shekels and adrenochrome on purpose
Galil fangirl
This is an Army clusterfrick. Marines don't have anything to do with this
Marines were involved in most of the prototype hands on testing SIG did. And they were officially observing and participating in the evaluation of the NGSW program. They just haven't bought the gun or ammo themselves. If the army likes it enough the marines could switch in 5-10 years too.
Why do bullpup gays keep making these moronic threads?
OP isn't talking about a bullpup.
Because battle rifles are a concept that belongs in 1950.
Spoken like a true noodle-armed twink ravaged by AIDS
but they want a battle rifle clearly so I'm suggesting an ideal one
6.5 140gr tungsten core at 65k psi would punch lvl4 at least as well because of the sectional density
design a 20" barrel that can come apart to a 10" barrel for room clearing
>OP isn't talking about a bullpup
And yet the ones who love bullpups too much always make these sorts of threads
More like, why don't they just adopt the AR-10 in 6.5 creed and use steel case with some high tech coating
Doesnt matter how fast 5.56 goes if it drops its speed by 80% after 300yds and thats if we are not accounting for a .5 mph wind
5.56 can easily have better BC than 7.62x51 NATO
Main problem of the 5.56 is short ogive and poor form factor and ballistic coefficient as result. Just lengthening of the 5.56 by 5 mm allows it go have more range than 7.62x51 real fricking NATO, without changing load power.
If you would throw in increased pressure it would be totally zippy super cartridge. Even more funny: you can make it reverse compatible with old 5.56x45 loads.
PS. Third on the right is 64gr 5.56 round with 0.216 G7 BC (higher than BC of the 7.62 M80 bullet). Only problem it's a little too long for the 5.56x45 OAL).
22. creedmore it is.
100 grain 5.56 chugging at 3200fps.
855A1 is already pretty frickin pissin hot dude it's really hard on barrels and bolt carriers.
AR-15 is famous to be flimsy design. Get SCAR.
>why doesn't the government spend a lot of money to make a very significant change in how things have been done for the last 100 years that will offer quite literally zero benefit and will only incur more costs in tooling and repair of already janky inventories of old ass guns
you need to be 18 or older to post here
You can make super "5.56" that has more range than 7.62x51 NATO and US reverse compitable with d 5.56 ammo stocks. What was the main critique of the 5.56? Afgan goat herders outrange 5.56 with PKM? Well you can make 5.56 that outranges PKM from 14.5" barrel
did you even want to try and address the point I made or were you just wanting to keep posting your r*ddit tier "it'll be so much better if adults did what I thought was good on paper" logic
> Super 5.56 outranges notorious Russian PKM that makes entire NATO tremble
>zero benefits
my point was that it's too expensive, not sure how frickin brain dead you are to think I was talking about theoretical range
It would be cheaper than what they're actually doing instead.
PKMs are 10 times more expensive than M4s but poor Russians still can afford PKMs.
Did you miss the Spear? They're already doing something much, much more expensive.
You underestimate just how moronic the pressure would have to be.
Just once I'd like US small arms procurement to stop huffing paint/Hebrew penis. Sooner or later we're going to get an actual intermediate mass produced and I'd prefer it to be before the centenary of NATO going full moron.
>Sooner or later we're going to get an actual intermediate mass produced
They're setting up a whole new dedicated 6.8 production facility at Lake City. I'd say we've found the round.
They're even issuing it to the national guard next.
> A National Guard armored brigade will be the next to field the XM7 and XM250
It's not an intermediate, we're back to .308 tardation again.
They call it intermediary
And you're splitting hairs if 6mm or 6.2mm is intermediate but 6.8mm is full powered.
Yeah they called fricking .308 an intermediate too and it's not about fricking bullet diameter either.
5.56x45 intermediate
6x45 intermediate
7.62x39 intermediate
6.8x43/45 intermediate
6.5x48 somehow full power
6.8x51 also full power
7.62x51/54R full power
There is no clear delineation
It's okay, you're not smart. We don't all have to be smart, just smart enough to keep our mouths shut when we're being obtuse.
So where is the cut off Mr genius?
7.62x63 is the "original" full power cartridge
By extension 7.62x51 also meets the criteria
But is 6.5 creedmoore?
And if so, why EXACTLY?
If you're going to act superior, explain yourself.
NTA, but I think the spotlights are 1250 foot pounds as firmly intermediate, 2500 foot pounds as firmly full power, then 3500 as firmly magnum level.
277 fury out of the short barrel gives something like 3050fps at 140 grains, for 2900 foot pounds of energy, putting it in the upper range of full powered and approaching the lower range of magnum power.
I desperately want a 20” bullpup chambered in the cartridge for hunting, I’ve been hunting with an old mdr for years and I would trade up in an instant to a 277, it’s a very exciting cartridge
So 6.5 creedmoor at 2200ftlbs is intermediate?
>1000 away from the center of intermediate
>300 away from the center of full power
Being that 300 is much less than 1000 I think 6.5 creedmore is on the light end of full powered cartridges, but is still a full power cartridge
look up the Swiss P site
Even Beretta accepted polymer cases aint shit. And they claim they can make the full range from 9mm up.
>no?
Dont ever do that here. Its a US board. Its fricking annoying. To answer your stupid question; barrel life, parts wear.
I’ve gotten a 55gr fmj to 3100fps out of 14.5 With reloading.
26.5gr of shooter’s world tactical rifle powder. Half a grain below max. And probably right at 60,000 psi
>Having 3300 FPS out of a 14.5 inch barrel would be nice, no?
Sounds like 6mm MAX might be what you seek.
>6mm
>58-105gr
Is this some sort of joke? Where are the 115gr and 100gr solid copper bullets? Better off with .223 if you're shooting 105gr.
>55kpsi
Okay, it's definitely a joke.
lolwut
If your goal is long range, you're better off with .224 Valkyrie 95gr in an AR or 6mm ARC 115gr in a bolt gun. If your goal is "muh stoppan power," you're better off with 6.8 SPC in an AR or 6.5 Grendel in a bolt.
I'm not sure you understand the reason for 6mm MAX's existence; it allows the use of standard 5.56 bolts in ARs (since it's based on the .350 Legend case) while giving comparable performance to 6mm ARC; the mags also have a smaller footprint for the same capacity compared to 6 ARC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .224 Valk, etc. If this isn't relevant to your purposes or interests so be it, but I reckon there's quite a few people who think the idea of only needing a different barrel on your AR to shoot a round that significantly outperforms 5.56 (and is comparable to 6 ARC loads with the same bullets) is pretty cool.
>while giving comparable performance to 6mm ARC
It doesn't give comparable performance to 6mm ARC because it doesn't offer the core functionality that 6mm ARC exists for: loading heavy VLD bullets to magazine length. I guess it lets you save $40 on a bolt, but in comparison to a $600 barrel that's not that much saving.
That's why I specified "loaded with the same bullets," there's a lot more to 6mm then the really heavy ones. There's some good bullets for 6mm in the 80-90-100gr range that could make for great general purpose loads to replace conventional 5.56 loads. The company that developed 6 MAX doesn't advertise it as some kind of world beater that makes 6 ARC obsolete for long-range shooting with heavier 6mm bullets; they developed it specifically to be a replacement for 5.56 in the AR platform that only requires a barrel swap.
Because the AR-15 bolt can't handle that and if you try to adopt a non-AR-15 in 5.56 you'll have to trial it against the AR-15. Which means you'll lose, horribly.
Why do we even need a new fricking gun? What happened to Abrams and Warthog? Why can't those pussies just tell the zoomer in Nevada to glass the fricking city with his Xbox controller?
>Having 3300 FPS out of a 14.5 inch barrel would be nice, no?
do you even shoot 55gr out of an 18-20"? do you know what happens when you launch small projectiles at those speeds or speeds much higher than they were designed for?
now do you know why they made next-gen?
now can you put together those pieces of info to realize it doesn't even fit the role?
>All bullets are thin-jacket soft points
Absolutely nothing bad would happen to an M855A1 bullet at 3300 FPS.
it's the effect on target that would render it moot
they want an ap round, not a frag
you'd basically be making .22 sabots at that point, and then you realize the error of your ways in sticking with the ar
but just to reiterate, i would like to see a frag round like that, idk about the jannies who would have to clean it up, but damn that would be a real spicy bean
3300 isn't even that fast, .220 swift and .22-250 loads go well over 4,000 FPS.
>Spending all this money to make new rounds that, while novel, offer only a marginal gain in lethality
>Not going the complete opposite direction and trying to increase volume of fire without reducing size so much that the projectiles are ineffective flechettes
>Not focusing on developing novel cooling methods so caseless can be a thing and soldiers can carry 50% more ammo
The ideal infantry rifle is not a rifle, it's a quad barreled P90 fed from a backpack holding several thousand caseless rounds and cooled with ejectable metamaterial heatsinks that can be pressed back into a proper reusable shape with hand tools after cooling back down.