More that the German claim was without merit. And this is an especially impressive display of chutzpah when one considers that the Germans were fielding flamethrowers and poison gas.
Saphroneth
Banned
I've read at least one book which pointed out that for many questionable weapons in WW1 - each kind of poison gas, for example - the cycle was:More that the German claim was without merit. And this is an especially impressive display of chutzpah when one considers that the Germans were fielding flamethrowers and poison gas.
Germans first use
Allies protest
Allies use better
Germans invent new
Except that by the end of the war, it had become
Allies invent
Allies pre-position but do not use
Germans first use
Allies protest
Allies use better
Wendigo
Banned
More that the German claim was without merit. And this is an especially impressive display of chutzpah when one considers that the Germans were fielding flamethrowers and poison gas.
I guess buckshot is worse than choking on your own vomit or having your skin burned off like candle wax.
Depends on what you use as a metric. SOCOM seemed to think so, the ballistics backed that up (the 6.8 retains more energy at 300 meters, than the 5.56 generates at the muzzle), but other studies claim that the advantages of the round do not exceed the perceived drawbacks (including difference in weight of ammo for similar number of rounds).
I lean toward the 6.8mm, on the other hand I'm not the one humping a basic load of rounds up a mountain in Afghanistan.
By popular myth(?) the Germans complained to the Swiss (as Protecting Power for British POWs) about POWs using bagpipes as it was inhuman to the guards. There are times when I can see the validity of the claim...............
On a similar degree of triviality I once tried to claim, as my personal weapon for annual arms qualification, an 84 Charlie G with a canister round. My CSM was less than amused.
BTW the use of the term 'anti-materiel' rifle for some heavy rifles using non ball rounds may well be a use of weaselly words to get around the prohibition on explosive rounds of less than 400 grams in the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868.
How high is the probability that the US is gonna fight against someone following the rules of the geneva convention? (note that i did not say "someone who has signed it")
It filled a perceived need before the advent of the M855A1 5.56mm cartridge. But now that we have the M855A1 the 6.8mmSPC is fairly pointless. Past a certain range (500m?) it suffers a significant drop in velocity and energy, so it's an even worse choice for a machine-gun or SAW than 5.56mm. The projectile is squat, fat, and not terribly aerodynamic (relatively speaking). I'm unaware of any terminal ballistic studies on it, so I have no idea about it's wounding. It's short ogive leads to potential accuracy issues, as does it's lower muzzle velocity. It's important to remember that it's development was driven by the "5.56-hater mafia." (There are still people who ridiculously proclaim that the M14 would be a better choice than an M16.) In defense of the 6.8, though, we're really never going to come up with something truly impressive when we have to fit it through a magazine well that was designed for 55-grain 5.56mm.
So I'll respectfully disagree with CalBear, and choose M855A1 over 6.8mm. Handily. It helps that I can carry twice as much, but also 5.56mm has a long proven track record of use in ARs. Which is what I would be carrying- AR/M16/M4. But I should probably bow out of the 6.8-bashing. I really don't know it's ballistics well enough. So I'll limit myself to calling it "now pointless."
But I'll reiterate that Joules is not "stopping power." It certainly helps, but it isn't equivalent. And unfortunately you'll find that a lot of that "rank idiocy" I mentioned earlier revolves around the spouting of energies. The M855A1 was designed to reliably tumble within three inches of penetration (within 1 inch in some tests) and fragment, to retain the wounding potential that it's predecessors had out of a 20-inch barrel. It's vicious, not unlike the original 55 grain out of a 20-inch barrel, on which here is a dated but nonetheless fun reference. Chapter 4, specifically. [I should probably disclose that I know Ron Bellamy- he was one of my professors at USUHS.] Tumbling and fragmenting results in a greater fraction of the projectile's energy being delivered to the target, thus causing a larger temporary cavity, as opposed to just passing through. (Note that the .223/5.56 in that video is worst case- the 55 grain out of a carbine-length barrel. Almost as ifthe test was almost designed to make 5.56 look bad...) A larger temporary cavity has a better chance of intersecting something vital. (That's why Joules does not equal wounding- terminal ballistics is far more complex than that.) Also, multiple projectiles- in the form of fragments- are more likely to intersect a major vessel or other vital structure than is a single projectile. But there's only so much you can do out of a 14.5-inch barrel, and the M855A1 had to meet it's other design goal of having better penetration than the M855, and even 7.62x51mm ball. That's why it has that mild steel tip.
The 6.5mm Grendel is a different matter. It was designed to duplicate 7.62x51mm ballistics out of a normal-sized AR. In other words, it was meant to be a long-range cartridge. And it did succeed- the bullet drop over distance is essentially identical to the 7.62. But, wow, that's a steep neck. I have to wonder about feeding reliability, again. If it could be proven reliable, and to have decent wounding, I might prefer an AR in 6.5mm Grendel. (I did mention that I'm a 6.5mm fanboy, didn't I?)
Last edited:
I have to agree with acrsome in that, ceteris paribus, the effectiveness of a bullet is a function of the energy it transfers to the victim. It doesn't matter how much more it has once it has passed through and is disappearing off into the Ulu. Where accuracy comes is in targeting that victim and range in being able to reach out to the victim. Especially if he can reach out to you. Having made it thus complicated one needs to adding that your capacity to carry ammunition has a role in maintaining suppressive fire but that again needs to be modified by the ability to reach out to the enemy and with enough accuracy to be effective.
There is no perfect answer to all firefights. One's army does not know if, in 5 years time, you will be clearing stone walled houses or coping with accurate long distance aimed rifle fire on an open steppe. Then, of course, there is the question of the bullet design which has the same problem.
When it comes to personal preferences one tends to stick with the known and reliable. I betray my age by choosing the 'one hit stays hit' L1A1.
There is no perfect answer to all firefights. One's army does not know if, in 5 years time, you will be clearing stone walled houses or coping with accurate long distance aimed rifle fire on an open steppe. Then, of course, there is the question of the bullet design which has the same problem.
When it comes to personal preferences one tends to stick with the known and reliable. I betray my age by choosing the 'one hit stays hit' L1A1.
It is the reason why i feel we shouldn't go with an entire new design, the 6,5mm swedish mauser is a well proven bullet design, however the case is too big (due to being designed for 19th century smokeless powder).
so stick that bullet in a modernised case and you have a pretty good design.
the FAL (L1A1 in uk designation) is pretty much the AK of the west when it comes to prolonged and widespread use and durability.
Maybe a FAL in 6,5mm would be good for you?
Not a new idea- would you prefer the .260 Remington or the 6.5mm Lapua?
(There are others, but they tend towards the odd or extreme.)
The former has the vitrue of being based off of a .308/7.62x51mm case, so all you have to do is take such a rifle and change the barrel. It will even use the same magazines. Both are nonetheless very much more in the league of 7.62x51mm, rather than 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm. They are powerful cartridges- much more than a modern assault rifle needs. You'd need a large and heavy rifle, on the order of an FN FAL/L1A1, G3, or AR-10. In fact, there are AR-10s made in .260 Rem. And then the ammo weighs almost as much as 7.62x51mm as well (a lot of cartridge weight is the brass case), which reduces how much you can carry. So, in general, not a great assault rifle round. You might prefer the 6.5mm Grendel.
Similar to the 6.5mm Grendel which was made to replicate .308 ballistics, these two are both .308-sized cartridges designed to replicate .300 Winchester Magnum ballistics.
I did mention that I'm a 6.5mm fanboy, didn't I?
Hell, I own a .260 Remington. You can push 900m/s (2930ft/s) muzzle velocity using a 120-grain (7.8g) bullet that has a wicked ballistic coefficient. It's like shooting a laser...I'm also one of those people who think we missed a great opportunity with the .276 Pedersen. And then again with the .280 British.
Last edited:
to heavy and to much recoil for someNot a new idea- would you prefer the .260 Remington or the 6.5mm Lapua?
(There are others, but they tend towards the odd or extreme.)
The former has the vitrue of being based off of a .308/7.62x51mm case, so all you have to do is take such a rifle and change the barrel. It will even use the same magazines. Both are nonetheless very much more in the league of 7.62x51mm, rather than 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm. They are powerful cartridges- much more than a modern assault rifle needs. You'd need a large and heavy rifle, on the order of an FN FAL/L1A1, G3, or AR-10. In fact, there are AR-10s made in .260 Rem. And then the ammo weighs almost as much as 7.62x51mm as well (a lot of cartridge weight is the brass case), which reduces how much you can carry. So, in general, not a great assault rifle round. You might prefer the 6.5mm Grendel.
Similar to the 6.5mm Grendel which was made to replicate .308 ballistics, these two are both .308-sized cartridges designed to replicate .300 Winchester Magnum ballistics.
I did mention that I'm a 6.5mm fanboy, didn't I?
I'm also one of those people who think we missed a great opportunity with the .276 Pedersen. And then again with the .280 British.
The Russians are actually experimenting with it now, they call it the Grendalski
If I'm being a purist, we should be designing the cartridge from scratch again without the need to fit it through an AR's magazine well, and then design a rifle around it. (LSAT?) That steep shoulder just has to play hell with feeding, so I doubt it'll ever be anyone's standard.
Last edited:
Saphroneth
Banned
Yes, as irritant, though in common with the first German use their enemy didn't notice. Notably, the Germans spread a fake story of Allied use of (deadly) gas before they made their first major use of such.
marathag
Banned
Poison, Germans against the Russians in 1915 with xylyl bromide, more an irritant
Later Chlorine gas cylinders opened, and wind blew into French trench line
PlasmaTorch
Banned
Heckler & koch got it right with the XM8 rifle. That design had fantastic ergonomics. If it was based around a gas operating system like the AN-94s, that would be superior to most rifles in most circumstances. (Long range sniping would be the exception) The nikonov mechanism fires two bullets in a very tight grouping, which can very effectively suppress enemy soldiers. Research from WW2 indicated you needed a certain number of bullets (within a certain amount of time) passing near a man before he would take cover.
5.56x45mm is an okay round, but the M855 pattern has decreased lethality from the original M193. The army kept messing around with its twist rate after the vietnam war, when they should have just left it alone. The M193 bullet would fragment more violently (and at greater range!) than the M855. Supposedly, the new M855A1 rounds have solved this problem, but not everyone is convinced. The army had too many conflicting requirements for it, including a lead free construction.
The XM8 had no relationship with the Nikonov system, but is instead a remodeled G36 with an essentially identical operating system, which was in turn based on the Stoner AR-18. The G36, of course, has its own problems with the poorly positioned charging handle and the overly bulky sights that carried over to the XM8 concepts. Moreover, the Nikonov system was designed to allow better shot placement when penetrating body armor (ceramic armor can only resist a few shots in the same spot at best) and had nothing to do with suppression effects. In fact, the extremely high initial rate of fire means that it would be very difficult to hear the individual bullets passing because they would be so close together. Also, using a Nikonov rifle in a semi-automatic mode - like soldiers would in almost all combat they would engage in - would make it just as accurate as any other rifle, and the reversed recoil system would improve upon the ability of soldiers to make follow-up shots, which is the single most important part of tactical shooting.
In my opinion, the best military rifle today is the Remington ACR. It uses a short-stroke gas piston system very similar to the G36/SA80/AR-18 and has the best ergonomics and handling of any widely available rifle. In addition, it avoids the additional weight of the Nikonov recoil system, the effect of which can be rivalled by advanced muzzle compensators for a much smaller weight penalty. Moreover, the modularity of the system means that rifles can be easily converted, with appropriate parts, to fire any intermediate cartridge that can fit in an AR-15 magazine well, including 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, and 7.62 x 39mm.