jgnfld wrote:To this day I think a 6mm would have been the way to go way back when when the 5.56mm replaced the 7.62mm. Not a full size .243 necessarily, but something like a 6mm version of the 6.5mm Grendel. Or maybe just the Grendel in any case. Or maybe a 25 cal (6.25mm) version.AirTech in response to PeterZ wrote:Dropping the caliber to circa 7.6mm / 0.3 inch would permit a longer ranged gun with much lighter ammunition. Weight of ammunition goes up at the cube of the caliber for the same velocity. Which is why 5.56 mm ammunition is now popular - a balance between useful military range (cc 300m) and force on target. 50 caliber is fine if you want to punch holes in trucks a 2km but not particularly useful if the choice is carrying a quarter as much ammunition and hitting a quarter as many targets at a tenth the range. (Firing a M-16 is way more comfortable than a Barrett - particularly off hand and in auto - unless you are a built like former Californian Governor ,and the difference on the receiving end is marginal).PeterZ wrote:...
Not quite. The M1 used a clip to load an internal magazine. The M96 already uses a detachable mag. I would bypass the M1 and design towards the M14. The design is much more complex but also closer to the peak of firearm design. The next phase of the war will be some time in coming. There will be time to truly prepare to win that phase. I can see Housmyn setting a goal to design a rifle that fires a certain number of rounds in a minute. There would be quite a few entrants to that. He'll pick the design closest to a full automatic and then tweak it.
The bolt action will be around for quite some time, so the production lines will be used to supply either military of civilian needs. The goal for this next phase is jump ahead of the logical progression of weapons to keep far enough of the CoGA development team to kick their dupas one more time.
My own feeling (which, I am sure, will have nothing to do with the ultimate decisions made in Charis) is that (a) the value of full-auto fire for every trooper is way overrated and (b) that the notion of deliberately range-limiting your weapons is Not A Good One.
Waaaaaay back in the 1950s, the Brits deliberately went with a semi-auto version of the FAL (the L1A1) chambered in 7.62 NATO rather than a full-auto or a selectable design. Now, admittedly their current assault rifle (the SA-80), chambered in 5.56 NATO is selectable for full-auto fire, but it's also capable of ripping through ammo at well over 750 RPM, whereas the L1A1's rate of fire is only about 20 RPM. That means the SA-80 is capable of firing off its ammo (which weighs about half as much per round as 7.62 and is about 64% as long and has about 80% the diameter) the next best thing to 40 times as quickly. There are assuredly going to be situations in which having that rate of fire available to you will be a Good Thing; there's also the minor problem of inculcating sufficient fire discipline to know when not to use it. The fact that you can carry twice as much ammo (being generous; the actual number is lower than that) will be a great comfort when you realize you've fired it all off in a sustained fire fight.
The modern tactical tendency has been towards lavish use of suppressive fire, especially in fire-and-move tactics, and I am not arguing that this is a bad tactical doctrine. I do know, however, that if I were the Bad Guys and I knew my enemy used a "spray and pray" approach, I'd be much more likely to take some chances exposing myself than I would if I knew the other side was waiting to take aimed shots only when a target presented itself. A lot depends on the standards of marksmanship and fire discipline one decides to train into one's troops, of course. And given the fact that studies show that, historically, only about 10% of troops in combat have actually aimed at the enemy when pressing the trigger, the hill the trainer has to climb may be just a tad steeper than some people might anticipate.
Rather more to the point, however, as one consequence of weighing less than half as much as the 7.62, the 5.56 has less than half the normally cited maximum effective range. Fighting in close country or in an area broken up with terrain obstacles, that's fully adequate. In open country, or where intervening terrain features do not break up firing lanes, that extra 500 meters or so of range can be a make-or-break factor. A persistent request from the front lines in Afghanistan, for example, has been for greater range in mountain and desert fighting conditions. As one of my friends (a small arms instructor for many years) pointed out to me, you can always use a long-ranged round at shorter ranges if you have to; the reverse is a bit harder to achieve.
Ammo consumption was one of the factors in the US going to a 3-round burst capability on the M-16 and probably represents a reasonable compromise between full-auto and semi-auto given current tactical doctrine. However, there are strong arguments in favor of making the SAW the focal point of your full-auto capability and equipping the supporting riflemen with semi-autos which can reach out and touch someone at longer range when needed, are much more miserly in rate of fire, and expect your riflemen to take aimed shots at specific targets.
I'm just saying someone in Charis might feel that way.
Ain't saying it's agonna happen. [walks away, hands in pockets, whistling]
IMHO, the lack of range is only one flaw in the 5.56 NATO round. A 6.5mm or 7.62mm or even an 8mm bullet in a cartridge like the 6.5x39 Grendel cited above gives back some of the range and hitting power lost to "assault rifle calibers" without incurring the weight penalties "Assault rifle calibers" seek to avoid.