New American 6.8mm rifle

[Uncle Bob]

The 6.5x50SR (Arisaka) was indeed pre WWI. Also the 6mm Lee Navy.

Tony William's website
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/

especially
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Brigand:
The biggest reason that U.S. forces used a .223 cal. round was the fact that once fired it did not fly in a straight line , but rather tumbled into it's target .

This is a widely held, but incorrect belief. The M193 and M885 5.56x45mm rifle rounds do not tumble in air. They do turn over in tissue. In fact, nearly all rifle bullets turn over in tissue because they are v=heavier at the base than at the tip, due to the ogive taper.

What makes the 5.56 particularly noteworthy is that it begines to tumble very quickly, and it tends to fracture at the canneleure, creating two or more sub missiles.

This mechanism of wounding has been well described in the literature, particularly by Dr. Fackler.

See:

http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
The .276 Pdersen was killed by the great depression.
The .280 British and 7mm intermediate were killed by a couple of fossils in the US Ordinance Corp.

But after forty years of the 5.56 they may be ready for a heavier round.

It is highly unlikely that the 6.8 will be adopted for general issue. The main reason being that there are millions of rounds of 5.56 in the inventory and the rifle really has very little impact on actual combat. Fewer than 1% of casualties are created by rifle fire - and the fact is, the currect round is 'good enough'.

Consider that reports from Iraq indicate that the typical rifle engagement occurs at less tha 100 meters. In fact, more than 80% of all rifle engagemenst in Iraq have been at 100 meters or less according to Army sources.

This is not unanticipated given the nature of modern infantry combat tends to be urban in nature. Couple this with the fact that a soldiers ability to engage targets succesfully drops to near zero at 300 meters and there is no real impetus to field a new round.

Besides, contrary to the opinions of certain gun 'experts' in the civilain gun press, the 5.56x45mm has proven to be a very lethal cartridge. Actual studies of caualties in SE asia showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more letha than the 7.52x51mm!

The military would be better served by developeing new technologies like OICW that promise real, radical improvements in hit probability and lethality, rather than spending money on a new cartridge or rifle which will have little or no impact on the effectiveness of the soldier.

The military rifle has reached it's zenith, and these new cartridges or weapons are nothing more than insignificant tweaking which will ultimately have no impact on the effectiveness of the infantryman.

 

[Uncle Bob]

I tend to concur, especially as the Mk 262 mod 1 has proved reasonably effective. Mk 262 mod 1 was recently bought in quantity by the USMC.

The 6.8x43 is very accurate (1 moa, 2.5 cm at 100 m)and effective a longer range. The ammo is a lot heavier and recoil is pretty brisk (about 25% more free recoil energy than an AKM).

SpecOps call it the 6.8x43 SPC, for "Special Purpose Cartridge." But then, the5.56x45 was originalllly bought for SpecOps in Vietnam.

 

[vegascat]

Changing cartridge weight, size, power is five tuning a system that is approching it's maximum effieciency. It took breach loading to make any real advances over muzzel loading muskets.
What really makes for a better infantry weapon?

Increased ability to eliminate the combat effectiveness of a target with a single shot.
Higher rate of fire for area fire against hidden targets.
Increased range of effective lethality.
Increased effective penetration of used body armor, shielding or walls.
Increased wounding ability.
Increased stability of aiming point.
Increase target aquisition ability.
Decreased effective aiming time.
Decreased report during firing.
Decreased weight.
Decreased bulk.
Decreased malfuction rate.
Decreased price.
Increased longevity during long term storage, no rusting.
Decrease ammo weight/bulk per effective hit.
Decrease complexity.
Increase ease of use.


The perfect wonder weapon would be something;
aimed by looking at the target,
fired by thinking about it,
instantly fatal regardles of armor,
no consumable ammo or power requirements,
usable instictively by anyone,
last forever,
the size and weight of a microscopic cell,
leave no bodies on the battlefield to clean up or bury.
Yeah, sounds like a god weapon, and would definately take the fun out of the game for the GM. Still be damn nice to have one.

 

[mike wightman]

The perfect wonder weapon would be something;
aimed by looking at the target,
fired by thinking about it,
instantly fatal regardles of armor,
no consumable ammo or power requirements,
usable instictively by anyone,
last forever,
the size and weight of a microscopic cell,
leave no bodies on the battlefield to clean up or bury.
Yeah, sounds like a god weapon, and would definately take the fun out of the game for the GM. Still be damn nice to have one

Sounds like the Droyne/Ancient disintegration pistol from Twilights Peak

. Of course you would have to be psionic to use it, maybe .

 

[orc65]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The military rifle has reached it's zenith, and these new cartridges or weapons are nothing more than insignificant tweaking which will ultimately have no impact on the effectiveness of the infantryman. [/QB]

What about Metal Storm technology, this takes military rifles one step ahead of current trends.
Admittedly it still fires a projectile, but the concept is for a weapon with no or minimal moving parts, and it is capable of producing rates of fire far in excess of current weapon systems.

See the website for more detail:

Metal Storm

 

[kaladorn]

Metal Storm introduces some interesting potential - a police pistol which can, at the flick of a button, switch from slug to rubber bullet to shotshell/glaser or the like.... a grenade launcher that can adjust its ammo type without reloading or rotating a cylinder to the right spot.... etc.

OTOH, if you want 'higher rates of fire' for a military rifle (a dubious prospect), you'll need to reintroduce batmen and personal assistants to carry the excess ammo load. A caseless round has some weight advantags, but if you're going to fire a lot of them, that's going to mean a single unit of fire for your infantry unit is going to get a lot heavier.

This is less (though not entirely not) of a problem for vehicles and fixed mounts. One place the metalstorm looks reasonable is CIWS/Phalanx style systems for ships or ground installations.

Remember, even after several thousand years of warfare, a lot of time is still spent by infantrmen marching around with 50-120 pds. on their poor aching backs and supported by their two-step black cadillacs. You're already tacking on pounds for new optical and sensor systems, personal monitoring and telemetry, advanced communications with crypto, etc. Add in higher rates of fire, more diverse weapons systems, etc. Eventually the poor grunt disappears under the weight he has to portage!

I was happy when they went from the FN to the C7 here in Canada. My FN was sturdy, somewhat reliable if kept clean, and could be used as a step on the assault course. But the C7 was lighter and let me carry an extra 30 rounds for about the same overall ammo weight. Every pound you can shave off what you have to carry makes a difference.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by orc65:
What about Metal Storm technology, this takes military rifles one step ahead of current trends.
Admittedly it still fires a projectile, but the concept is for a weapon with no or minimal moving parts, and it is capable of producing rates of fire far in excess of current weapon systems.

See the website for more detail:

Metal Storm

Metalstorm has some limitations. So far all applications use short, fat, ballistically inefficient bullets which seems to be inherent in the techology. Also reloading looks awkward. And so far no one has thought of an application that requires more than 10,000 rpm so the metal storm cyclic rate is moot.

Two ideas which might be worth pursuing are the "minefield in a box" and the "Advanced Infantry Combat Weapon". The latter is an Australian OICW concept.

 

[aramis]

Cole and Bunch, authors of the Sten series, came up with probably the best infantry wepon concept I've seen yet:

The Willy Gun. Fires a small BB, which is a hollow magnetic sphere monopole. (EG, N is out S is in). In and of itself, no big deal. Until you consider the milligram of antimatter hovering in the center. Use a magnetic accellerator, and the whole accelerates together... on impact, the magnet splits, the AM hits air, and WHOOMP!

Seriously, tho', the US Army has had all kinds of weapons in testing... until it is field deployed, they really seldom know what the performance issues really are... hence modified versions being released a few years down the road.

Not that any of my nam vet friends were terriby fond of seeing "Mfg by Mattel corp." on their M16's...

(In Boot, we had M16A2's... many of us had "Converted" Colt AR15's...}

 

[kaladorn]

Wasn't the AM2 wrapped in an Imperium-X shell? Otherwise known as 'unobtainium'?

Not very likely.

Drake's guns that fired glass beads were more likely.

The military always has a few tricks up its sleeve. I talked to a friend in SF who discussed the 'puke laser' (think laser-taser so to speak - causes you to basically loose all control of your muscles and such momentarily and vomiting isn't unusual - good for takedowns, if you catch the guy unprepared). He said he and some buddies actually got to test it on each other. Short range, some obvious defenses (works best against the unprepared or helpless, but it takes the fight out of them). He said they shot each other and then reeled around like drunks... (he called it 'great fun' but then people who kick down doors in far off places to find bad guys have an odd sense of entertainment, to be sure).

 

[Uncle Bob]

Interesting. Foe a while now it has been suggested that you could use a laser to ionize channels in the air to replace the wires in a taser.

Nice to know it is real.

 

[kaladorn]

Different principle. You are talking about an electrical stun gun that uses the laser to burn a path through the atmosphere creating a low resistance channel to dump the capacitor through (into your target). That's an 'electrostunner' or the like.

This is different - it is strictly optical. Electrically powered, but it is the strobe effect of the laser and the particular frequency (they have one for dogs, one for humans, one composite) that causes the target to basically have some sort of fit, siezure, whatever and fall down drunk or at least reel around, lose some muscle control, and probably get damn nauseous.

But it works like the dickens if you don't know its coming.... good for cuffing recalcitrant crims, etc. Or SF takedowns.... "Hi Mr. Sadam. Please look into this light..."

 

[Todg]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Not that any of my nam vet friends were terriby fond of seeing "Mfg by Mattel corp." on their M16's...

This is a great piece of urban legend. The Mattel corporation has never had anything to do with the design or manufacture of the M-15, or any other Eugene Stoner designed weapons.

The fact of the matter is th M-16 had some initial teething troubles, true of every weapon system ever fielded. This was mostly related to the lack of a chromed chamber and cleaning kits and was confined to 1966-67. By 1968, the problems had been corrected, and those who served in the latter half of Vietnam had nowhere near the problems.

Of late, the M-16 has proven to be a vary reliable platform, with over 30 years of military service. Few of the more 'modern' weapons can make that claim.

 

[Zutroi]

I recently saw a portion of a "Dateline" program that had me in stitches - warming people about shoddy design of military equipment and using the M-16 (now in service for 35+ years) and the F-16 (probably the single most successful fighter aircraft in anyone's inventory) as examples.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Corejob:
The fact of the matter is th M-16 had some initial teething troubles, true of every weapon system ever fielded. This was mostly related to the lack of a chromed chamber and cleaning kits and was confined to 1966-67. By 1968, the problems had been corrected, and those who served in the latter half of Vietnam had nowhere near the problems.

A friend of mine (Mad Dawg, though not on this board) served three tours in RVN. First was as a grunt, second as a squad leader, and third was as an MP sergeant. He recalls that the M-16 used to have a horrible habit of developing stoppages even if you cleaned it 4 times a day.

Early on, this lead to the sub-rosa re-adoption of things like the Thompson, the M1 Carbine, etc. Until, of course, someone in the Brass noticed that people were'nt using the M-16 much. Then they collected up all these weapons, putting the gropos back in the nick!

Dawg told me the VC would even time their main thrusts to accomodate the fall-off in squad or platoon firepower as the M-16s started to stop up and fall off-line (owners frantically working to clear them and get them back in action). The counter tactic to this VC tactic that was evolved was having the MG gunners fire in a very restrained manner during the first moments of the firefight, while the rifles were likely to be working well. Then, when the rifles started to fall-off (and you could tell the firing was slacking and the VC would push), the MGs would then go to a more rapid fire engagement to try to take up the slack (as would the grenadiers).

He explained that when he was an MP, they still ended up (after the collection of all the Thompsons, Grease Guns, etc people had as secondary weapons) looking for other weapons. Some got a pistol, he got a Remington 12 gauge pump and got his folks to send him ammo from the states in boxes. He used it when things got close and the M-16 was being temperamental.

So, although today's M16 (and the even better C7 Diemaco manufactures) is a mature and reliable weapon, it really weren't always so and the fears of weapons being fielded before they are ready is as real today as ever was.

 

[flykiller]

He recalls that the M-16 used to have a horrible habit of developing stoppages even if you cleaned it 4 times a day.

as I understand it, the AR15 was originally designed by a civilian to use a certain smokeless powder. it worked great, and when first issued to the airforce in vietnam (without cleaning kits) everyone was very happy with it. the army didn't want a weapon that wasn't designed by their own people, and when directed to use it they decreed that it would be loaded with ball powder, the army standard for many years. the weapon was not designed for this dirty powder, and became the problem everyone hears about.

obtraveller: does anyone bother with weapons' failures during game combat?

 

[kaladorn]

Well, Dawg said the main problem was the Red Dirt of the RVN. He said it got into positively everything and the weapon was just one example. He blamed it for most of the problems.

As to weapons failures, here'd be my rule of thumb:
1) Poor troops might have to test
2) Good troops, forced to operate in brutal environments (rain forest, desert, arctic, out in the field for ridiculous lengths of time) might have to test
3) Notably poor designs might have to test
4) Bad or really stale ammo might cause problems

But generally, a good modern military service arm, taken care of (or sometimes even if not!), will not jam or misfire to any significant extent if the ammo being used is good.

However, even the modern M-16 can cause problems - I've heard at least three accounts from different soldiers in Iraq of M-16 jams at key points in close quarters firefights with Iraqis.

So, extreme conditions, poor weapons, or poor troops might lead to jams.

How to do this in a game?
In CT, roll double-1's. Then roll D6 for a number greater than your number of terms (halfed or just plain 1 if you weren't in a combat arm or if you've never had weapons training). If you roll over your term number, you're weapon is jammed. This means good (ie experienced) troops will take better care of the weapons. Poor designs might subtract from the number of terms as might poor conditions.

In MT, I'd probably say exceptional failure, roll for a mishap. If the mishap roll is at sufficient, you get a stoppage. A subsequent mech or weapon task might be used to try to clear the stoppage - maybe it's a quick fix. Maybe the gun is FUBAR.

 

[flykiller]

How to do this in a game?
In CT, roll double-1's. Then roll D6 for a number greater than your number of terms (halfed or just plain 1 if you weren't in a combat arm or if you've never had weapons training). If you roll over your term number, you're weapon is jammed.

excellent. quick, simple, responsive to player skills and actions. I'll be using it.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by flykiller:
obtraveller: does anyone bother with weapons' failures during game combat?

I use MT. So I use the mishaps, too.

Trivial mishaps are duds.
I use JAM for a minor mishap.
Major mishpas are "IT's not going to work again until it's been to the armorer"
Destroyed mishaps are "It won't work again, but there may be useful parts there" (Cracked barrel, shattered bolt, etc)