Tell Us Something We Don't Know

- From the point of view of US law, every full automatic is considered machine gun. Therefore even M16A1 is considered MG.
- Very interesting presentation regarding this topic:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

What would we presume new cartridge requirements to be?
1. Must fit the existing AR15/M16 platform.
2. Recoil has to be such that burst/full auto fire can be effectively used.
3. The projectile must be of a size and weight with enough velocity that bad guys near and far are anchored with torso hits.
4. Loaded round weight/size must be such that a rifleman can carry lots of rounds.

If those are all true, it prescribes a rather narrow operating envelope. The 7.62 Nato doesn't fit the platform, and recoil makes full auto/burst fire un-fun in a light rifle. The 7.62x39 Russian round fits the platform and is effective at close/medium range, but the stubby 123 grain .30 caliber projectile does not carry well at distances. A projectile somewhere between he .243/6mm/100 grain and the .264/6.5mm/120 grain would seem to fit the bill. Smaller/lighter than that and you get the undependable performance of the current 5.56. Larger/heavier than that, and you sacrifice velocity in brass than can fit the platform. A plus for the 6.5 is that javelin-shaped 140 grainers are a known quantity in the industry. Though launched with less speed than the 120s, they carry their momentum very well at long distance, and could offer the designated marksman a same-ammo option. The 6.5 Grendel is one example that would seem to fill the bill ballistically. Just my 2 cents, but I think the Grendel, or a similar cartridge, is worth a look.

Grendel military type ammo is still in prototype phase.

Comparable to the Grendel is Hornady's 6.5 Creedmoor. The 6.8 SPC should be looked at, and why not the 7mm-08?

I would submit that the longer range rounds are not necessarily suitable in an in-close, urban type environment while your short range rounds just won't cut it in long engagements. Does a mix make sense? Not necessarily if you don't know where you are going, but it may warrant analysis. Look at the mix in WWII: Thompsons and Garands. In my mind, a Thompson is an ideal close in weapon. Heavy, hard hitting round inside a house or at ranges less than 50 yards. A round which may not exit the individual, but stands a high probability of causing maximum shock to the bad guy. The Garand was your longer range rifle, so move the AR platform (if we really have to stay with that) to one of the 6.5-6.8 rounds for your longer engagements. Hell, buy a bunch of Mini-30s or Mini-14s in 6.8 SPC...

The object is to kill the bad guys.

Easy solution: stop using M855.

Go back to M193 or even better start using the Mk 262.

And to think we won two world wars, beat back the Chicoms in Korea using the 30-06!!
And the M1 Garand.
I would still prefer my M1a1 if I had to get in a firefight.

Great post! Hope to be better. Better means more features.
good post,I think so!

Find a great range of Ed Hardy products. Ed Hardy Women's Ellerise Lowrise Sneaker · Ed Hardy Women's
thanks for your post.perhaps you will like