Platoon Weapons

[120mm]

The 144 grain 6.5mm round is more potent than NATO 7.62mm M80 according to one set of figures I have seen.

And here is another interesting point: All the data I've seen on the new wunder-cartridges share the same characteristic: They uniformly compare apples to oranges: They compare a specialty cartridge, in a specialty role, against a general purpose, or specialty cartridge OUTSIDE of it's specialty role. What if, instead of buying an entirely new family of weapons, you just reworked already existing cartridges? A 7.62 round with similar bc and sectional density to the 6.5 round will be superior in every way, except weight and weapon weight. A more useful statistic would be to compare like characteristics of similar rounds and honestly accept the compromises in suboptimal solutions.

And in reference to your earlier post, I reject utterly the utility of CRISAT. A round capable of penetrating well will do minimum damage to flesh, unless you are able to suspend the laws of physics. I have no ideas why the EUROs are so fascinated with poking tiny holes in body armor. (Actually, one idea just came to mind: I would suggest that the lack of a "gun culture" results in a form of "magical thinking" about firearms effectiveness. That is, to a large group of people who view firearms as distant, imaginary objects, having ANY gun creates a perception of vast power.)

In general, rounds that create good trauma results are not good at penetrating armor, either, unless you scale them up. There is no free lunch, advertising hype notwithstanding.

One more element to throw into the mix. Small rounds may weigh 1/2 to 1/3 as much as large rounds, but I would suggest that soldiers will use more than three times as many rounds to compensate for their lack of perceived power. Resulting in reduced combat effectiveness for no gain. A "Lite Foods" unintended consequence for combat soldiers, if you will.

[William F. Owen]

1.) And in reference to your earlier post, I reject utterly the utility of CRISAT.

2.) One more element to throw into the mix. Small rounds may weigh 1/2 to 1/3 as much as large rounds, but I would suggest that soldiers will use more than three times as many rounds to compensate for their lack of perceived power. Resulting in reduced combat effectiveness for no gain.

1.) C.R.I.S.A.T = Collaborative Research Into Small Arms Technology. CRISAT is a research analogue based on the requirement that a small arms round has to be able to do more than merely create large wounds. Very useful if it can go through car doors for example, and it has to do it for quite low cost because armies buy millions and millions of rounds. To anyone who criticises CRISAT I say come up with a better test analogue.

2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

[kaur]

"On the Terminal Effectiveness of Small-Arms Ammunition"

The difficulty with achieving good terminal effectiveness with a PDW round have led some to argue that the whole concept is a waste of time: that everyone, regardless of role, should carry the standard rifle. The risk with this is that non-infantry soldiers, concerned with their primary roles, will stow the rifle somewhere out of the way, where it may not be available when required.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm

[120mm]

"On the Terminal Effectiveness of Small-Arms Ammunition"



http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm

A couple notes: First, an Army shouldn't equip itself based on what the capabilities of the worst soldiers are. I'm a combat arms guy, with significant experience working in a major CSS HQ, and those guys couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It wouldn't matter HOW "handy" you make a weapon, it's just a paperweight to them.

Second, I read, corresponded with and have learned a bunch from Tony Williams, but like the great majority of technological historians, he is a collector of trivia. An extremely talented and readable collector of trivia, but a collector of trivia, nonetheless. And the problems with trivia collectors is that they are seldom burdened by functionality.

[jcustis]

2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

Ding....ding.......ding. I've heard myself saying the same thing to folks who are dismal on the 5.56 and never carried the weapon before.

[Uboat509]

My issue with the 5.56 is based on admittedly anecdotal evidence but evidence from sources I trust. The most telling is the stories from guys I knew in Afghanistan. Doing CQC in the caves they ran into numerous situations where they were putting two, three or more rounds in the boweling pin and not putting the bad guy down immediately. The guy was dead but he did not know it yet and often got several shot off before he died. As a a result of this, some of our guys were killed or wounded. I have heard similar stories from Iraq and the Philipines. Having said that, green tip was id'd as being a significant problem, which is why so many of us started loading LR which has somewhat better ballistic effect.

SFC W

[kaur]

I found interesting topic "6,5 Grendel vs 7,62 NATO" and in the middle of next link, there are nice penetration tables (I have never met before).

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...6&page=2&pp=25

[120mm]

I've thought about this issue for a couple months now, as something bothered me about it, but I couldn't think what it was. This afternoon, as I wrap up yet another meaningless Reserve Drill, it suddenly came to me:

This whole issue about PDWs and teenie-tiny projectiles and the statistical gunfight strikes me as being the modern day incarnation of the pre-WWII Royal Air Force "Area Attacks".

Basically, "Area Attacks" was based on the exact statistics that "prove" that individual fighter plans can't possibly accurately target enemy bombers, so therefore the RAF went to rifle caliber guns, instead of cannon, mounted 8 per aircraft, and synchronized to provide a "suppressive spray" at extreme range. And the squadron leader would maneuver the entire formation to "saturate" a box of sky, therefore "statistically" shooting down any bomber present in that sky "box".

"Area Attacks" were popular among theorists, and scientifically supported by all sorts of "facts"..... But were a complete and utterly impractical failure, that put the RAF back a year in the fight against the Luftwaffe, which valued individual marksmanship, airmanship, and automatic cannon mounted on aircraft, synchronized to hit at a focussed range.

The more I examine the analogy, the more I like it, and see it's relevance. Sure, well-emplaced GPMGs and Mortars will do excellent work on the majority of engagements, but I don't think that is a good reason to do away with the rifleman.

[120mm]

1.) C.R.I.S.A.T = Collaborative Research Into Small Arms Technology. CRISAT is a research analogue based on the requirement that a small arms round has to be able to do more than merely create large wounds. Very useful if it can go through car doors for example, and it has to do it for quite low cost because armies buy millions and millions of rounds. To anyone who criticises CRISAT I say come up with a better test analogue.

2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

The value of big, relatively slow bullets is not just a cultural thing. And it IS a cultural thing. Fast and relatively light bullets tend to shed energy quickly on barrier materials. Large and relatively slow bullets tend to penetrate everything BUT body armor better. Most 5.56 rounds will not penetrate as well as .40 or even 9mm ball ammo, for instance, except against body armor.

What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor. With the bottle-necked pistol rounds currently the rage as PDWs, you are optimizing to penetrate body armor and suboptimizing for general barrier penetration and flesh.

The weight penalty would only be the additional projectile weight, as both rounds would be approximately the same size. The saboted rounds would be around the same weight as the current PDW rounds, with a slight tradeoff in armor penetration due to the pressure effects of using the larger bore.

[William F. Owen]

1. Most 5.56 rounds will not penetrate as well as .40 or even 9mm ball ammo, for instance, except against body armor.

2. What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor.

1. I am not sure I can agree with that statement. I've seen 5.56mm round go through material at 300m, when 9mm was dropping out of the air. Give me a range, some specific rounds and a specific material. 9mm DM11-A1B2 performs very differently from 2Z. (speaking as a former body armour tester.)

2. So what criteria do you suggest, that can be usefully measured? What you are asking for is the holy grail of bullet design. The NATO working groups long ago decided the optimum round had to be able to do both. If you were planning to fight US equipped troops, wouldn't you want a round that could defeat the PASGT helmet?

...and yes, we don't want to tailor weapons potential to the base-rats and REMFs.

[Uboat509]

What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor. With the bottle-necked pistol rounds currently the rage as PDWs, you are optimizing to penetrate body armor and suboptimizing for general barrier penetration and flesh.

The weight penalty would only be the additional projectile weight, as both rounds would be approximately the same size. The saboted rounds would be around the same weight as the current PDW rounds, with a slight tradeoff in armor penetration due to the pressure effects of using the larger bore.

Some are already doing something similar to this. Some of my buddies carried mostly mags of 5.56LR but also carried a mag or two of green tip if they needed penetration. I was not blessed with as much LR so I alternated LR and green tip in my carry mags. 5.56 is not as effective as 7.62 but it is still better than green tip in terms of wound characteristics.

SFC W