Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I wonder how long the US and therefore the rest of NATO are going to be evaluating and discussing where the future lies regarding the size and weight of small arms ammunition. I have a feeling it is going to be a very long time as the US seems to be looking for the "Holy Grail" solution that has to provide so much more than existing types and it very reluctant to even more to 7.62x51 in case something better appears. Everyone is going to be riding swings and roundabout for years to come in my opinion.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:surprising that the higher velocity, heavy for calibre 5.56 options are not regularly considered.
(L)MGs could make good use of them, but would they still be interchangeable with std rounds, carried by the rest of the squad?
Unfortunately not, it would require the adoption of an entirely new cartridge as the 5.56x45 is pretty much maxed out.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

arfah wrote:The answer to the holy grail calibration has existed since the 1950’s.
7x43mm (.280/30).
And they know it!
Just for anyone who doesn't know the holy grail that arfah is taking about.

This the 7x43 aka .280 British
image.jpg
From L to R: 7.62x51, 7x43/.280 British, 5.56x45

The graphs clearly show the efficiency and effectiveness of the 7x43 vs the other options.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg
Nothing comes for free. This chart shows the recoil energy of the 7x43 sits squarely between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51.
image.jpg
Some interesting information on the development of the round.
http://www.cartridgecollector.net/28030-british-7x43

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by whitelancer »

In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.
It will only end with a compromise, just as all current rounds are, and future rounds will be. Its all a matter of making choices. While it is always useful to try and develop the ideal round for a particular set of requirements I think it would be sensible to recognise that no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Unfortunately not, it would require the adoption of an entirely new cartridge
The projectile is a given now (and entirely new); backwards integration is now the challenge. We will get to see what comes out by the summer. That is us... those in the know might already have something to handle - but a competition that does not make
whitelancer wrote:In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.
Sure is, but interchangeability within a squad/ section is a respectable goal.
whitelancer wrote:no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.
Equally true, but that is a rather bigger universe than a squad?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

whitelancer wrote:In my opinion the hunt for an ideal round is a chimera.
It will only end with a compromise, just as all current rounds are, and future rounds will be. Its all a matter of making choices. While it is always useful to try and develop the ideal round for a particular set of requirements I think it would be sensible to recognise that no round is going to cover all possible needs and therefore accept the use of more than one round and organise and equip your forces accordingly.
I think there is more to it than that.

Given the stretched nature of defence budgets in most NATO countries I think even if it was proven beyond doubt that the perfect intermediate cartridge had been developed at a realistic price point and that all existing weapons systems could be cost effectively converted to fire this new war winner, it won't be adopted anytime soon.

It's just not a priority for the majority of NATO members. The costs to roll it out NATO wide would be staggering.

Time will tell.

Online
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by whitelancer »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sure is, but interchangeability within a squad/ section is a respectable goal.
Perhaps, But that is what the British Army had with the 5.56, and they no longer seem to be happy with it. As I said its all about choices, is interchangeability more important than other considerations!
Poiuytrewq wrote:Given the stretched nature of defence budgets in most NATO countries I think even if it was proven beyond doubt that the perfect intermediate cartridge had been developed at a realistic price point and that all existing weapons systems could be cost effectively converted to fire this new war winner, it won't be adopted anytime soon.
To a large extent it will depend on what the US does.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

That was my point, the US has be trying to replace the M16 and the 5.56 for decades and has spent billions trying to do so. AS pointed out even then if the US develops and adopts a new round how long will it be until the rest of NATO get around to accepting it as the new standard let alone adopting it. The time it took NATO to adopt the 5.56 could prove to be pretty rapid compared to what could happen this time.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

whitelancer wrote:that is what the British Army had with the 5.56, and they no longer seem to be happy with it
Quite a lot has been written about "how come". Headings like "Winning back the infantry half mile" have been used in the best pieces.
whitelancer wrote: To a large extent it will depend on what the US does.
As always. Some countries have interoperability to the fore, also in this respect. Some who insist that they produce their own rounds not ever to run out when they are needed in quantity (for instance) might "take their time" which in infantry weapons is like, 30 years.
Lord Jim wrote: how long will it be until the rest of NATO get around to accepting it as the new standard let alone adopting it.
Quite.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ron5 »

Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter? For example, like the Ajax gun, can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?

If I'm being daft, just say so.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?
To a degree (only), yes. In a drive to get a longer bullet (better ballistics) a French study took 106 pages to conclude that, but they nuanced the case a bit further (I am sure all of the below will emerge with the new US 6.8 mm GP becoming "observable"):

"Of course, if one was to adopt a new round, it would be highly advisable that this new round case
geometry should allow (from the beginning) the easy use of a light polymer (or composite) case.
A polymer case (with a light alloy case head) could:
• be tailored so that case capacity exactly fits the powder load and avoids free volume,
decreasing shot-to-shot dispersion and improving internal ballistics, • reduce the heat transfer from the cartridge to the chamber due to their low heat conductivity, • reduce the weight of a given round by ~30-35% compared to conventional brass cased
ammunition.

The cartridge described above, with a composite case and a slightly greater body diameter
(~11.2 mm) to account for the internal volume loss due to the polymer body, is expected to be no
heavier than the current 5.56 x 45 mm SS-109. "
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter? For example, like the Ajax gun, can the lead bit be embedded in the propellant? Maybe with a composite container instead of brass?
Is this what you have in mind Ron?
image.jpg

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ron5 »

Ha, I should have patented it!

Does it work?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I am sure I have seen a video of a belt fed LMG using one of those ammo types I think the 6.5mm. It was being proposed as a replacement for the M240 and SAW, and I believe it weighed slightly less that the latter with ammunition.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote:belt fed LMG
The method is one, but they do not stop there. Namely, it has been stipulated that the nxt-SAW should also accept the ammo ** as it is carried for the squad rifle** and then those rounds will not be linked.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Ron5 wrote:Does it work?
It does up to a point but I think it's fair to say that it's still a work in progress.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

R4 asked thefirearmsblog.com to work out a puzzle for tomorrow morning, so here goes:

If it is accepted that the combat loads of current service rounds, carried within the same weight limit, are both "good, or fit for purpose" due to the greater effect/ range of the heavier, but we want to use the average number derived from those two counts as the new round will be better than 5.56 and "as good as" the 7.62.
- what will then be the design target for the combined projectile +filled cartridge, in weight?

" example with the masses of two real rounds: 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO. 5.56mm weighs about 12 grams per shot; 7.62mm about 24 grams. Keeping in mind that the average of 12 and 24 is 18, let’s see how the math shakes out:

1000 g / 12 g = 83.33…

1000 g / 24 g = 41.66…

1000 g / (83.33… + 41.66…)/2 = 16 grams

It’s counter-intuitive, but it’s simple math. The next round has to be light, because the halfway point isn’t where you think it is.

(For the math geeks in the room, you have already figured out that it is the harmonic mean you need to use for this problem, not the arithmetic mean. Since this is a family-friendly site, these terms [were omitted] to keep things understandable for everyone.)"

Originally Posted August 14, 2017 by Nathaniel F
- had to go with this one, as so far I haven't come across a photo of SIG's answer to cladding a long bullet in a hybrid casing, with optimal fill while allowing for some added thickness from weaker materials in the hybrid
- not sure if there was a display arranged @AUSA, or just an announcement
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Here is the video I was talking about:

and another one:

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Simon82 »

Ron5 wrote:
Very naive question, but given the problem with the 7.62 ammunition is size & weight, can it be made smaller & lighter?
Whatever happened to caseless ammunition? I remember that being the future once.

If you’re of the correct era you may also remember the mocked-up photos of futuristic soldiers from the unimaginably distant year 2000 with their visored helmets (with integrated head-up display and night-vision!) clutching the ever present Heckler & Koch G11 rifle.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks, LJ. A good interview of Textron's Prender.

Did you notice how he did not want to use the word "belt" ?
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:belt fed LMG
[as] it has been stipulated that the nxt-SAW should also accept the ammo ** as it is carried for the squad rifle** and then those rounds will not be linked.

As a technical note, he also points out how theirs is different from "caseless".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes I did notice that so I stand corrected.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is not "all that bad" though.

Relying on the synopsis by the firearmsblog, for key bits of the publicly available documents
"Just a week before the Association of the United States Army (AUSA)’s 2018 annual meeting Army Contracting Command has released a new draft Next Generation Squad Weapons Prototype Opportunity Notice (PON).
On the 25th June, the US Army awarded six Other Transaction Agreements (or OTAs) to five companies: AAI Corproation Textron Systems, FN America (awarded two contracts – likely for the FN HAMR and a belt fed gun), General Dynamics, PCP Tactical and SIG Sauer.

quantities of magazines/drums/belts/other required to provide a minimum of 210 stowed rounds. The PON leaves the ammunition carriage system of the NGSW-AR open while stipulating magazines for the NGSW-R. Both weapons, however, must use the same round"
- 5 companies in the ring
- only FN has been asked for both weapons (prototypes): automatic for support, and the rifleman's weapon
-only Textron and SIG claim to have the compliant ammo (SIG for both), at least as claimed

So, what do GD and PCP Tactical have?

The plot thickens...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:only Textron and SIG claim to have the compliant ammo (SIG for both), at least as claimed
Military.com has been talking to Textron, about how they got ahead of the curve, while ARDEC was still finessing the new 6.8 GP round
- with "ahead of the curve" I mean that the deadline for prototypes (for testing for the rest of the summer) is June

“We actually used three different bullet shapes and we scaled it,” said Paul Shipley, program manager for of Unmanned Systems. “We scaled 5.56mm up, we scaled 7.62mm down and took a low-drag shape and ran that between the two” to create the 125 grain 6.5mm bullet that’s slightly longer than the Army’s new 130 grain M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Textron officials maintain that the new round retains more energy at 1,200 meters than the M80A1."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Halidon »

Simon82 wrote: Whatever happened to caseless ammunition? I remember that being the future once.

If you’re of the correct era you may also remember the mocked-up photos of futuristic soldiers from the unimaginably distant year 2000 with their visored helmets (with integrated head-up display and night-vision!) clutching the ever present Heckler & Koch G11 rifle.
The LSAT program which lead directly into this new competition looked at caseless and had some interesting work. Long story short, designing a practical (IOW, not G11) weapon to use caseless is very much in the realm of the possible. And designing the ammo itself is doable, but with a hitch: Without a protective case, of some sort, the propellant becomes very vulnerable to the sorts of things infantry has to contend with every day like dirt, mud, being dropped, etc. Until someone invents a propellant that's resilient enough to survive all that, without an ungodly price tag, caseless and grunts don't mix well.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The LSAT has done just that, the ammunition is more a telescoped round more akin to he CTA-40 but the case is a light weight polymer. This is still ejected but the rounds are far lighter and compact than the traditional brass cased variety. As already discussed the company responsible has developed a number of sizes ranging from 5.56 to 7.62. Dies anyone know the timeframe the US Army is looking at for its next generation infantry firearms? Would the USMC be forced to drop its recently acquired HK-416 variants?

Post Reply