Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Khand-e

Recommended Posts

Let me state why I am against 6.8 as it is different than anyone else' reason.  

 

As a person who studies several forms of technology I would introduce a theory that all technology performs, from a macro point of view, in the same manner, and by watching historical trends one can predict where you are on a technology adoption or change curve, and that allows you to invest time and money on looking for changes.  Two trends always show up - the trend of convergence, where a new technology sucks in all other technologies until it dominates the world, and that of shift, where a technology hits up against a wall and the only way to improve is to seek a new breakthrough outside of the dominant paradigm.

 

The last convergence for technology was 1886 when smokeless powder introduced new chemical paradigms into ground warfare.  Other technologies are peripheral - like digital and electronic, but still important.  However for guns, the convergence is long past, and now we enter shift. The universal weapon idea was the dream of convergence and happened twice - the musket (300 year dominance) and the advanced breach loader (only fifty years).  

 

Now we have entered the far ends of the period of shift where hundreds of specialized designs vie for king, and where minor corrections to course are constantly made seeking out changes that barely can be measured.  My objection to 6.8mm comes from this.  Sure, maybe it has a chubb advantage, and if we measure the erections of gun experts for the larger and longer throw weight of their tumescence we may determine that 6.8 gets a bigger boner factor than 5.56, but the 6.8 is merely a way of hiding from the fact that we are on the bottom of a new slope in technology, and it is very scary because we do not have the scope of the slow yet - we have no idea what is coming next.

 

I like the G11 because it is a test of paradigms that would answer the question "are traditional kinetics ready to go one more round."  I also like the idiotic 20mm thing the US tried out and the idea of plastic rounds, and metal storm.  It keeps someone working on the edge while the next paradigm develops.  The 6.8mm is an automatic looser for me just because it is a return to ideas we have already walked across, with the idea that the past was better than the future.  

 

In reality, I am a big proponent of adopting the 5.7 (and was a fan before it existed, since I am older than most of you, of the Spitfire) and fielding the PDW as a universal rifle.  BOPE has been working with this in their high threat environments and they love the 5.7.  My own experience with it was great, out to 200m a smart reflex sight generates great accuracy.  In combat the 5.7 can have a suppressing effect 250 meters further, which is all 5.56 does anyway.

 

So I would give units a little gun with that 200m envelope coverage.  That is inside danger close envelope where you won't get anyone shooting the big stuff anyway, and the entire modern job I believe of the hand-held kinetic is to fight in alleys and houses, or to clear the area 200m out.  I would design the sights to allow area fire to 600m, but this would be more to sustain suppression while the sniper or other assets find their cover.

 

Next, develop a universal thrower for each rifle that allows each soldier to toss 60mm mortar grenades out to 450m  These should be versatile (different models do different jobs), and include some with terminal guidance.  The GPMG stays with the team, as does the designated marksman, and this group is keyed to engage to this range or a little further.  

 

In Iraq and Afghanistan engagement outside the 450 mark is mostly done by heavies and artillery.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the most part, I really don't care about "caliber wars part two".. Most of it is just a sham to milk the taxpayers, just like the majority of military "studies" or "proposals".

 

What's silly is when they are proposed to be a replacement for GPMG/LMG cartridges.

Cause I've smelled that bullshit before, and it has not gotten any fresher as time passed.  

 

If the military wants to improve lethality, they need to start with ditching antiquated restrictions on projo design. 

 

You're tasking your citizens, potentially under duress, to kill someone else for political reasons.  Why are you hampering their efforts by forcing them to use a projectile design that has not changed for nigh upon a century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kind of ironic that a weapon in the M-14 which was originally designed as the one-size-fits-all weapon to replace the "golf bag" of World War 2 weapons then in use is now the poster child for the "golf bag" of weapons. It is the tactical equivalent of a sand wedge which is only really good for one particular thing and is deployed in situations when the user makes a mistake (i.e. sticking grunts in mini Dien Bien Phu's and not allowing them the rules of engagement which allow them to deploy heavier weapon systems as local combat conditions demand).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me state why I am against 6.8 as it is different than anyone else' reason.  

 

As a person who studies several forms of technology I would introduce a theory that all technology performs, from a macro point of view, in the same manner, and by watching historical trends one can predict where you are on a technology adoption or change curve, and that allows you to invest time and money on looking for changes.  Two trends always show up - the trend of convergence, where a new technology sucks in all other technologies until it dominates the world, and that of shift, where a technology hits up against a wall and the only way to improve is to seek a new breakthrough outside of the dominant paradigm.

 

The last convergence for technology was 1886 when smokeless powder introduced new chemical paradigms into ground warfare.  Other technologies are peripheral - like digital and electronic, but still important.  However for guns, the convergence is long past, and now we enter shift. The universal weapon idea was the dream of convergence and happened twice - the musket (300 year dominance) and the advanced breach loader (only fifty years).  

 

Now we have entered the far ends of the period of shift where hundreds of specialized designs vie for king, and where minor corrections to course are constantly made seeking out changes that barely can be measured.  My objection to 6.8mm comes from this.  Sure, maybe it has a chubb advantage, and if we measure the erections of gun experts for the larger and longer throw weight of their tumescence we may determine that 6.8 gets a bigger boner factor than 5.56, but the 6.8 is merely a way of hiding from the fact that we are on the bottom of a new slope in technology, and it is very scary because we do not have the scope of the slow yet - we have no idea what is coming next.

 

I like the G11 because it is a test of paradigms that would answer the question "are traditional kinetics ready to go one more round."  I also like the idiotic 20mm thing the US tried out and the idea of plastic rounds, and metal storm.  It keeps someone working on the edge while the next paradigm develops.  The 6.8mm is an automatic looser for me just because it is a return to ideas we have already walked across, with the idea that the past was better than the future.  

 

In reality, I am a big proponent of adopting the 5.7 (and was a fan before it existed, since I am older than most of you, of the Spitfire) and fielding the PDW as a universal rifle.  BOPE has been working with this in their high threat environments and they love the 5.7.  My own experience with it was great, out to 200m a smart reflex sight generates great accuracy.  In combat the 5.7 can have a suppressing effect 250 meters further, which is all 5.56 does anyway.

 

So I would give units a little gun with that 200m envelope coverage.  That is inside danger close envelope where you won't get anyone shooting the big stuff anyway, and the entire modern job I believe of the hand-held kinetic is to fight in alleys and houses, or to clear the area 200m out.  I would design the sights to allow area fire to 600m, but this would be more to sustain suppression while the sniper or other assets find their cover.

 

Next, develop a universal thrower for each rifle that allows each soldier to toss 60mm mortar grenades out to 450m  These should be versatile (different models do different jobs), and include some with terminal guidance.  The GPMG stays with the team, as does the designated marksman, and this group is keyed to engage to this range or a little further.  

 

In Iraq and Afghanistan engagement outside the 450 mark is mostly done by heavies and artillery.   

 

I don't know how my experience with ballistics measures up against that of others on this forum, but I have examined this problem deeply, and while I agree with the general thrust of your argument - that kinetic small arms are these days little more than PDWs - I disagree with the conclusion that therefore militaries should issue PDW rounds in lieu of rifle rounds. I will agree that the job of 5.56mm can most likely be done by a smaller round - an example I'd point to being the 4.6x36 HK/CETME - But the 5.7x28mm lacks a substantial amount of capability in penetration and lethality that 5.56mm possesses. Having said all this, the recognition of your central point that individual kinetic weapons are essentially personal defense assets should be incorporated into any future ammunition paradigm.

 

For the most part, I really don't care about "caliber wars part two".. Most of it is just a sham to milk the taxpayers, just like the majority of military "studies" or "proposals".

 

What's silly is when they are proposed to be a replacement for GPMG/LMG cartridges.

Cause I've smelled that bullshit before, and it has not gotten any fresher as time passed.  

 

If the military wants to improve lethality, they need to start with ditching antiquated restrictions on projo design. 

 

You're tasking your citizens, potentially under duress, to kill someone else for political reasons.  Why are you hampering their efforts by forcing them to use a projectile design that has not changed for nigh upon a century?

 

Good lord yes, what we have works very well. Anything beyond that is optimization, or the result of a paradigm shift (lightweight ammunition cases).

 

It is kind of ironic that a weapon in the M-14 which was originally designed as the one-size-fits-all weapon to replace the "golf bag" of World War 2 weapons then in use is now the poster child for the "golf bag" of weapons. It is the tactical equivalent of a sand wedge which is only really good for one particular thing and is deployed in situations when the user makes a mistake (i.e. sticking grunts in mini Dien Bien Phu's and not allowing them the rules of engagement which allow them to deploy heavier weapon systems as local combat conditions demand).

 

My readers don't know it yet, but the Light Rifle series is something of a set-up for a further screed on the evils of optimizing everything to the point where you have equipment that is unsuitable for battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how my experience with ballistics measures up against that of others on this forum, but I have examined this problem deeply, and while I agree with the general thrust of your argument - that kinetic small arms are these days little more than PDWs - I disagree with the conclusion that therefore militaries should issue PDW rounds in lieu of rifle rounds. I will agree that the job of 5.56mm can most likely be done by a smaller round - an example I'd point to being the 4.6x36 HK/CETME - But the 5.7x28mm lacks a substantial amount of capability in penetration and lethality that 5.56mm possesses. Having said all this, the recognition of your central point that individual kinetic weapons are essentially personal defense assets should be incorporated into any future ammunition paradigm.

 

 

My question for a ballistics expert would be:  Given the 200 meter envelope that every study since WW2 shows is the rifleman's engagement window with kinetic weapons, what is the lightest, cheapest kinetic round that can be designed.  Think of the Spitfire fighter or the A4.  Here is the engine (representing the technology envelope) - here is the job the engine must do.  What is the smallest, cheapest design that can fulfill the job of dominating the under 200m battlefield.  Free weight being given to carrying new generations of reach out and touch you weapon systems.  And I am perfectly comfortable with the bullet giving away everything past 200m.  I mean, if it flies 201 meters, throws out a small flag and says, "I give up," then plunks to the ground I would be happy as a clam.  As long as it knocks down an enemy at 199 meters.  That would get infantry off the notion that they are doing much good firing at longer ranges, unless we return to indirect area sights and consider the goal out to 600 meters is to land four round volleys into a 3x3 meter square of ground at a high angle for suppression effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question for a ballistics expert would be:  Given the 200 meter envelope that every study since WW2 shows is the rifleman's engagement window with kinetic weapons, what is the lightest, cheapest kinetic round that can be designed.  Think of the Spitfire fighter or the A4.  Here is the engine (representing the technology envelope) - here is the job the engine must do.  What is the smallest, cheapest design that can fulfill the job of dominating the under 200m battlefield.  Free weight being given to carrying new generations of reach out and touch you weapon systems.  And I am perfectly comfortable with the bullet giving away everything past 200m.  I mean, if it flies 201 meters, throws out a small flag and says, "I give up," then plunks to the ground I would be happy as a clam.  As long as it knocks down an enemy at 199 meters.  That would get infantry off the notion that they are doing much good firing at longer ranges, unless we return to indirect area sights and consider the goal out to 600 meters is to land four round volleys into a 3x3 meter square of ground at a high angle for suppression effect.

Yeah, I designed such an animal to the best of my knowledge, here it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, points of discussion on the 10mm auto, the greatest pistol round to ever grace the face of the earth and no one in this thread will even object to this.

 

-After trying 155gr vs previous 180gr Hornady XTP rounds out a 6" barrel, I actually got a whopping 200 fps increase from 1,400 fps to 1,600 fps when using said lighter round and also shot better groups when doing so, I was expecting an increase but not that massive of one. I didn't get the chance to shoot it in any medium to measure expansion/penetration because I'm lazy and just tried at ranges but still plan to whenever I get around to it.

 

-10mm bullit best bullit.

 

-Controversial topic - I think that while Solid Copper is preferable for rifles in hollow point design, I don't see alot of advantages for pistols which have much less space for powder and the longer copper bullet you need to get the same weight as a lead cored round, it just appears you're paying more (literally) for less velocity and no real gain, if any (hell, I'd have trouble seeing a slower, harder copper round expanding easier then a lead one) in expansion or penetration in soft tissue and some softer barriers. The only place I can see this being a big issue is if you're that paranoid about jacket separation, which 1. usually happens after said round has penetrated deeply in your target in the first place anyway, and 2. is more due to poor bullet design in the first place then something that affects all lead cored/copper jacketed rounds in general.

 

I guess I can see the advantage against intermediate barriers, but other then that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I buy this.  Now imagine the smallest reliable weapon that can be made from this round.  That is the infantry weapon of my dreams.  

 

pdw_main.jpg

 

Roughly the correct size. Imagine it with a 14.5" barrel. Now, notice how little difference there is between that and an M4A1. Ahah, we've seen the light!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, points of discussion on the 10mm auto, the greatest pistol round to ever grace the faet of the earth and no one in this thread will even object to this.

 

-After trying 155gr vs previous 180gr Hornady XTP rounds out a 6" barrel, I actually got a whopping 200 fps increase from 1,400 fps to 1,600 fps when using said lighter round and also shot better groups when doing so, I was expecting an increase but not that massive of one. I didn't get the chance to shoot it in any medium to measure expansion/penetration because I'm lazy and just tried at ranges but still plan to whenever I get around to it.

 

-10mm bullit best bullit.

 

-Controversial topic - I think that while Solid Copper is preferable for rifles in hollow point design, I don't see alot of advantages for pistols which have much less space for powder and the longer copper bullet you need to get the same weight as a lead cored round, it just appears you're paying more for less velocity and no real gain, if any (hell, I'd have trouble seeing a slower, harder copper round expanding easier then a lead one) in expansion or penetration in soft tissue and some softer barriers. The only place I can see this being a big issue is if you're that paranoid about jacket separation, which 1. usually happens after said round has penetrated deeply in your target in the first place anyway, and 2. is more due to poor bullet design in the first place then something that affects all lead cored/copper jacketed rounds in general.

 

I guess I can see the advantage against intermediate barriers, but other then that....

 

Pffft, 7.65 Parabellum is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pdw_main.jpg

 

Roughly the correct size. Imagine it with a 14.5" barrel. Now, notice how little difference there is between that and an M4A1. Ahah, we've seen the light!

 

 

Yes, but I never objected to your hypothesis, just reached from a different direction.  Now observe:

 

4.7mm - 7.6g per round  or 7.6kg per thousand.

5.56mm - 11.85g per round or 11.85kg per thousand.  

 

Currently soldiers carry a little over 500 rounds into battle between magazine loaded ammo and spare ammo.  You just gave me 2 kilograms back on the back of a soldier.  If you have never carried a basic load all day 2kg is valuable weight.  That is 3 rifle grenades, or 4 magazines.  And three rifle grenades just doubled my unit's killing power for the first 8 minutes of a firefight if everyone gets in on the action.

 

And I am not even getting into the saving of hook turns for an infantry battalion.  Hook turns that can carry more artillery ammo out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW the best  "grab it and go" rifle I ever used was an AK.  Barring that, it was a FAL.

Debate away, as presently the fulcrum of my "armory" is based on a MAS 49 with a modified Chatelleraut magazine...

 

I have a two rifle bag with a scoped MAS 1949 and a plain jane MAS 1936.  While I own a box of Chat mags, I have never found a gunsmith brave enough to modify one for me for my MAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, points of discussion on the 10mm auto, the greatest pistol round to ever grace the face of the earth and no one in this thread will even object to this.

 

-After trying 155gr vs previous 180gr Hornady XTP rounds out a 6" barrel, I actually got a whopping 200 fps increase from 1,400 fps to 1,600 fps when using said lighter round and also shot better groups when doing so, I was expecting an increase but not that massive of one. I didn't get the chance to shoot it in any medium to measure expansion/penetration because I'm lazy and just tried at ranges but still plan to whenever I get around to it.

 

-10mm bullit best bullit.

 

-Controversial topic - I think that while Solid Copper is preferable for rifles in hollow point design, I don't see alot of advantages for pistols which have much less space for powder and the longer copper bullet you need to get the same weight as a lead cored round, it just appears you're paying more (literally) for less velocity and no real gain, if any (hell, I'd have trouble seeing a slower, harder copper round expanding easier then a lead one) in expansion or penetration in soft tissue and some softer barriers. The only place I can see this being a big issue is if you're that paranoid about jacket separation, which 1. usually happens after said round has penetrated deeply in your target in the first place anyway, and 2. is more due to poor bullet design in the first place then something that affects all lead cored/copper jacketed rounds in general.

 

I guess I can see the advantage against intermediate barriers, but other then that....

 

With copper rounds after you plug a couple of fellers who need ventilating and leave them for the buzzards, you don't have to worry as much about lead lead contamination in the natural environment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I never objected to your hypothesis, just reached from a different direction. Now observe:

4.7mm - 7.6g per round or 7.6kg per thousand.

5.56mm - 11.85g per round or 11.85kg per thousand.

Currently soldiers carry a little over 500 rounds into battle between magazine loaded ammo and spare ammo. You just gave me 2 kilograms back on the back of a soldier. If you have never carried a basic load all day 2kg is valuable weight. That is 3 rifle grenades, or 4 magazines. And three rifle grenades just doubled my unit's killing power for the first 8 minutes of a firefight if everyone gets in on the action.

And I am not even getting into the saving of hook turns for an infantry battalion. Hook turns that can carry more artillery ammo out.

What, your point is "caseless ammo is lighter"? Yeah, I know, I own some. Too bad it substantially doesn't work. Current research programs like JSSAP are trying to achieve lightweight cased ammo, but what exactly they'll end up with I don't know. There seems to be a bigger boolit contingent there, certainly.

Back at the ranch, you can get down to the high 9.something grams with conventional ammo, but beyond that you start having to make compromises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's talking about 5.7 PDW, not caseless.

 

 

He's pointing out that a P90 is effective within 200 M, and with advances in explosive tech, it makes more sense to be armed with a PDW type weapon and grenades than a rifle that's effective out to 400+ with the same basic combat load of ammo.  More effectively lethal than a rifle with just rifle rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belesarius is correct.  When I listed 4.7 above I was not referring to the G11 round, which I do not refer to by traditional calibre since it is caseless, but to a brass cased bullet that functionally matches your bullet from the artwork. (Note if I was referring to the G11 round it weighs in at an even more impressive 5 grams).

 

 So I took the functional equivalent to your round, the 4,6x36mm (which was developed by the Germans and has a huge database on it) and re-ran my logistics figures with it, calling it 4.7mm.

 

While I believe that a P90 is enough for the modern warrior, the bullet you propose is ok by me, as long as we get away from these rifles trying to do everything.  That way we can finally admit that the rifle is a point defense weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belesarius is correct.  When I listed 4.7 above I was not referring to the G11 round, which I do not refer to by traditional calibre since it is caseless, but to a brass cased bullet that functionally matches your bullet from the artwork. (Note if I was referring to the G11 round it weighs in at an even more impressive 5 grams).

 

 So I took the functional equivalent to your round, the 4,6x36mm (which was developed by the Germans and has a huge database on it) and re-ran my logistics figures with it, calling it 4.7mm.

 

While I believe that a P90 is enough for the modern warrior, the bullet you propose is ok by me, as long as we get away from these rifles trying to do everything.  That way we can finally admit that the rifle is a point defense weapon.

 

This is a really good argument you're making. The caliber creep crowd want to maximize the ability of the rifle to strike at intermediate ranges. If you accept their hypothesis that small caliber rounds are ineffective, than any level of effectiveness gives a good price/performance ratio in that range bracket because the increase in capability is roughly infinite. There's just one catch. The soldier being a man with a rifle went out of fashion at about the same time as the fife and drums. The soldier is a small system that uses weight carrying capacity to bring a variety of tools to kill the enemy at a variety of ranges.

 

The constraining resource is not the allotment of a rifle, it is the ability to carry the weight of infantry equipment. The most weight-efficient way to add capability is the best (unless it involves something crazy enough to make something else, like cost or bulk, the constraint). The other option is rejiggering the relative position of the components of the squad if the individual soldier needs a capability they can't individually carry.

 

I've also got a comedy idea of mechanized infantry spotting for an autoloading mortar on their vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...