.222 Remington with super-heavy bullet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about the .220 Russian? Seems that it's usually loaded with stubby little bullets, but there's plenty of room in an AK magazine for longer bullets, and since the taper hasn't been screwed with, it should feed from the same. A custom barrel to accommodate the longer bullets, and it should be quite capable of tossing the 90 grain VLDs @ 2800 or thereabouts.
 
I don't think that extra performance is really warranted. It might be able to send a 105-grain bullet at 2700 fps, but why? The only weapon that would need performance like that would be a serious sniper rifle, and I already have a scheme to do so with this cartridge.
Here, this is the best description of the .236 cartridge concept that I have yet written. It's made for people with less knowledge of firearms than most people on THR (and it's still freakin' long), but it should be enlightening as to what exactly I'm shooting for:
If you had to ask me right now what thought the US armed forces should be using on the battlefield today, I would answer you with this:
This is a family of 5.85mm (.236") cartridges that, I believe, provide the answer to a long-attacked problem: logistics.
In the 1950s, the United States Army attempted to solve the problem of logistics in the military, as the post-WWII Army had, in service, 3 cartridges and four rifles, which greatly complicated getting ammunition to those who need it most.
What the US Army came up with was the 7.62 NATO, but as a universal round, it was a failure. It was heavy to carry for machine gunners, and was too powerful for lighter rifles and carbines to fire on full-auto.
In reaction, the Army later adopted to ultra-light 5.56x45mm NATO, also known as .223 Remington, which they continue to use today.
In the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, small lots of 5.56 were being delivered to special purpose rifleman in the field that could potentially change the way people think about small arms in particular.
This round was the Mk. 262 Mod. 0.
It featured the heaviest bullet the 5.56 could accommodate, a 77-grain open-tip match bullet with a super-thin jacket, and fired it at speeds matching that of the 7.62 NATO (which is slower than the previous 5.56x45 rounds). It was formerly believed that fragmentation could not occur for a military round at under about 2500 fps, which, for a round that relies heavily on fragmentation, as opposed to sheer bullet diameter, means that the round has to either have an enormous ballistic coefficient to hang on to every last foot-per-second of speed, or be going extremely fast to make sure that it has speed to burn. The Mk. 262 Mod. 0 changed that thinking.
The Mk. 262 showed that a bullet could be designed to fragment at velocities as low as 2000 feet per second, which meant that, with a properly designed bullet, the cartridge could be lightened, since the race-car like ballistics were not really needed anymore. Now, the 77-grain OTM bullet that the Mk. 262 fired did indeed have a superior ballistic coefficient, the best that an operational 5.56 can have. However, the ballistic coefficient, from a design perspective, is low, constrained by the overall length of the magwell of the AR-15 and the magnum-style case of the 5.56.
Using the lessons learned from the Mk. 262 Mod. 0 and discarding the 5.56 round entirely, I have come up with a cartridge system that effectively solved the logistics problem, increases terminal and other performance in nearly all areas, and reduces weight from other 5.56 replacement proposals by anywhere from 20-30%.
The cartridge comes in four "flavors":
M950 Ball: This is heavily based off of the Mk. 262 discoveries. Designed to perform against human targets, but also with barrier and vehicle penetration in mind, the M950 shoots a 105-grain, .236-caliber bullet at 2550 feet per second, using a modest pressure of 50KPSI, thanks to slow-burning powders. Ballistics are very similar to the larger 6.5 Grendel cartridge.
M955 Light Armor-Penetrating: This round is designed with barriers in mind. It fires a 97-grain, steel-cored projectile at 2600 feet per second. It mimics the capabilities of the M855 Green Tip round (while unconstrained by European preferences for "non-nasty" ammuntion), and it well-suited to SAW use due to its light weight and long range.
M956 LAP-Tracer: Similar to the M955, the M956 is a tracer round in addition to having some limited penetrating capability. Based on technology developed during the 6mm SAW ammunition program, its tracer can be seen out to 900 yards, further than both the 5.56 and 7.62 tracers.
M957 Dedicated DMR-Sniper; AP: The oddball of the M950 series, the M957 has a slightly elongated case (by 1mm) in order to prevent it from feeding into standard assault rifles and machine guns. In addition, it will not fit into the standard STANAG magazines of assault rifles, preventing cases of mistaken identity that could lead to possible deadly jams on the battlefield. For further safety, the round has a bright red band around the case neck, as well as a crimping in the neck, should the band wear off.
Why? The M957, due to its dedicated sniper role, operates at 10KPSI higher (60KPSI) than its standard companions. This allows it to send its 105-grain bullet--essentially a match version of the bullet used in the standard ball loading, with the addition of a tungsten penetrator--at up to 2750 f/s, giving it a range unequaled by rounds in the same class.
Sniper rifles that will feed M957 will also feed the other typed of ammunition as well, as it poses no long-term threat to the rifle's health. In addition, standard rifles and MGs will be proofed to withstand the pressures of this round, in the event that such a round does actually manage to be fed into one of them.
However, such pressures do no good for the standard action, and would wear them out quickly (especially MGs) if fed a steady diet of high-pressure ammunition.

In my opinion and research, a set of cartridges comparable to these would provide a true optimum for the modern warfighter, and would serve well in many respects for many years. Other cartridges that have been suggested for a full-out rifle replacement include essentially "Grendel-Magnums" that exceed the performance of that cartridge by usually less than 200 fps (and exceeding the OAL of the M16 by several millimeters). However, the Achilles heel of those rounds is that they weigh far more than the 5.56 NATO and even the 7.62x39mm, which is no lightweight. The M950 series of cartridges stay much closer to the 5.56 in terms of weight, being only slightly heavier. This cartridge accomplishes all the tasks that a modern military requires, all in the same four types of cartridge that have been with us for many, many years.
The decision to make the Sniper/DMR round a slightly different one originated with the realization that, due to special requirements by snipers, a single TYPE of cartridge could not possibly replace the standard set of four (ball, AP, tracer, match). The four types could possibly be reduced to three, but no less than that, as snipers have to have match ammunition and it is just not feasible from a production standpoint to issue every soldier match ammunition. In addition, the requirements for the sniper cartridge are the most onerous, requiring more range than is needed by any stretch of the imagination for an infantry rifle, and even a squad-level MG or SAW. Thus, since the sniper ammunition must be distinct anyway, I decided that a small augmentation of performance was in order, and that, as long as the high-pressure cartridges could not be used in the basic grunt's rifle, the Sniper/DMR load could be made to utilize higher pressures. Now, the STANAG magazines and infantry ammunition can all be used in the envisioned sniper rifle; the design would be such that they would be compatible. However, the dedicated sniper magazine, which is the only one capable of holding the M957 ammunition, could not be used in the standard rifle.
It is my hope that the ammunition types could be reduced to three: ball, AP/tracer and match, but I am just not certain that a 105-grain bullet could fit all of the components necessary to make it effective as both an AP an tracer round inside of it. Therefore, I created the M855 act-alike, the M955.
By the way, I'm not entirely certain about whether the statement about fragmentation and 2500 fps is entirely correct, but I know that it surprised me and from all the cartridges that I've looked at, appears to hold true. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this inference.
Here's a crude render of the four types, notice the sniper round is slightly longer (by 1mm at the neck):
M950Family.jpg
 
Last edited:
Apologies, I didn't make myself clear. You're correct that this particular cartridge is not anything desirable, but it creates a starting point for something that is, the .236 that is the ultimate goal. That cartridge is ballistically almost identical to the 6.5 Grendel, which does exceed the 6.8.

Understood, forget about .22s, what you're chasing is essentially an 85% Grendel.

Instead of getting there with a very heavy for caliber 6mm, how about using a lighter 6.5mm bullet?

The Grendel is 120 grains (SD=0.25, G1 BC=~0.55) at 2550 (20"). That great BC is achieved with a long Lapua VLD bullet which probably causes more OAL problems than it's worth. But we'll keep it for the sake of argument and give similar bullets to the others. Swapping them for something less aggressive across the board won't change the relative rankings.

Scale down to 6mm, that'd be 100 grains, we'll give it the same BC and velocity.

And scale it down to a 100 grain 6.5mm bullet and dock the BC to 0.45.

Code:
            V0    E0   V300  E300   V600  E600   600y drift  600y drop
6.5 120   2550  1730   2090  1170   1680   750     29"        128"
6.0 100   2550  1440   2090   970   1680   630     29"        128" 
6.5 100   2550  1440   2000   890   1520   510     37"        137"

Past 300 yards the heavy 6mm is beginning to pull away, not spectacularly so until you're pretty far out there but if it's free you may as well take it.

But consider that with the greater piston area of the 6.5mm bore the same case capacity will get you another 75-100 fps at the same pressure. The stubbier bullet makes things easier regarding OAL constraints, or lets you get away with a more aggressive ogive, assuming feed or fragility aren't the limiting constraints.

Run it again with another 75 fps on the light 6.5mm :

Code:
            V0    E0   V300  E300   V600  E600   600y drift  600y drop
6.5 100   2625  1530   2060   950   1570   550     35"        129"

Equally flat to 600 yards. A little more energy on target inside 200 yards. Better performance in carbine length barrels. Ammunition no heavier.

Worse in the wind, slightly more recoil, a little less energy way out there.
 
Aspade, what you are suggesting would be fine for a caliber that only has to satisfy the infantryman. But what about the SAW/LMG gunner? What about the sniper? (Essentially, it seems you're going for a scaled down 6.8 SPC of sorts. Maybe not exactly, but it looks close)
If you just cater to the infantryman, you gain practically nothing. These other areas must be covered. We hashed over this time and time again over what was better, faster or more energy retentive in The Ultimate Combat Round thread. What we (actually, just GunTech) came up with at the end was the 7.62x45mm Czech necked to 6.5 shoving a 144 grain bullet at 2550 fps. Now, this cartridge does not have nearly the BC of that round, but I also considered it to be excessive.
So I worked out some weight savings, and this is what the result of that research has come to.
EDIT: Also, I'm not trying for a super heavy bullet in 6mm. I'm trying for a super heavy bullet with a BC equal to the 6.5 123-grain Lapua Scenar bullet in 5.85mm. According to my calculations, the equivalent BC in that caliber is 104 grains, I just rounded it off to 105.
 
I don't see the government buying an incremental improvement in rifle ammunition. They are waiting for The Next Big Thing. See the article in the new American Rifleman about the current state development of telescoped ammo? Plastic cases or no cases at all will save a lot of weight.

Tests are being done with M855 bullets for easy comparison with 5.56, but that does not mean they couldn't end up with something ballistically better in the end.
 
I don't want to discourage you on this project, but Jim Watson is right on the money.

Changing bullet diameter by .008" to get to .236" is going to be a real tough road. We already have pretty small gaps in established bullet diameters and there is little to be gained by splitting the difference.

Also keep in mind the bigger picture. A tiny weight savings is not worth a whole other round. Your M950 and M955 proposed rounds probably aren't different enough to justify the 2 of them. The performance difference in most applications is most likely negligible and now you're back to the logistics nightmare. The weight savings of 8 grains per round between the two adds up to a whopping 1/3 of a pound.

Once again, I don't mean to discourage, but work on the "big leap" that Jim talked about. Don't make the little improvements with existing technology. Make your own technology with performance that is unheard of and people will listen.
 
I don't see that the light 6.5mm bullet gives up much to the 6mm in the SAW role.

The trajectory is even to 600 and within a foot of each other past 800 yards - at which point they've both dropped more than 20 feet. The 6mm has more energy at long range but the difference isn't even 10% until 500 yards. At 800 yards it's 20%.

Chasing 800 yard performance in somethat that is first and foremost a 0-300 yard tool isn't general purpose. Building your DMR around a carbine round - or vice versa - isn't general purpose either.

Getting reasonable 600 yard performance is worth chasing, the SPC falls short there due to its stubby bullet but that can be bumped up to acceptable without going all the way down to a 6mm needle.
 
I don't see the government buying an incremental improvement in rifle ammunition. They are waiting for The Next Big Thing. See the article in the new American Rifleman about the current state development of telescoped ammo? Plastic cases or no cases at all will save a lot of weight.

Tests are being done with M855 bullets for easy comparison with 5.56, but that does not mean they couldn't end up with something ballistically better in the end.
I don't want to discourage you on this project, but Jim Watson is right on the money.
work on the "big leap" that Jim talked about.
I am already brainstorming plastic-cased ammunition and sabot rounds that are ballistically identical to this ammunition. This is really just a performance springboard, but I'd like to take it full-term, that way there are less bugs to work out when I do end up converting it to a more cutting edge format.
Also keep in mind the bigger picture. A tiny weight savings is not worth a whole other round. Your M950 and M955 proposed rounds probably aren't different enough to justify the 2 of them. The performance difference in most applications is most likely negligible and now you're back to the logistics nightmare. The weight savings of 8 grains per round between the two adds up to a whopping 1/3 of a pound.
I don't blame you for not reading that whole huge monster, but I addressed that previously:
Nolo said:
It is my hope that the ammunition types could be reduced to three: ball, AP/tracer and match, but I am just not certain that a 105-grain bullet could fit all of the components necessary to make it effective as both an AP an tracer round inside of it. Therefore, I created the M855 act-alike, the M955.
 
I will just add this one little tidbit. We have many popular chamberings in:

.22 cal
.24 cal
.25 cal
.26 cal
.27 cal
.28 cal, and
.30 cal

*Arguably*, what's missing is a .23 cal and/or a .29 cal, which could fill some conceivable niche, and strike just the right balance of tradeoffs.

So I welcome your budding engineering enthusiasm, Nolo. You may or may not be onto something, but I think this idea is worth pursuing:

I'm convinced that you can make a bullet that both penetrates non-armor barriers (like car doors) and has excellent fragmentation properties on flesh.
The reason is because a hard surface with little behind it (car door) is different than a soft compound surface (like a human). I want to exploit that difference.
 
*Arguably*, what's missing is a .23 cal and/or a .29 cal, which could fill some conceivable niche, and strike just the right balance of tradeoffs.

They aren't missing, at least not completely.

P.O. Ackley designed and sold at least two different .230s for use in states where regulations were written "no caliber under .23" so as to keep people from hunting big game with Swifts, etc. So he just necked up a couple of big .224s to .230 and had made bullets to suit. Bullets ran 60-75 grains with heavy jackets for deer medicine.

Handloader Magazine once did a piece on the B-29 Ultimate Wildcat. Pure fiction and photoshop but they made it sound as good as anything here.
 
There is no supply of those bullets, so they are pretty much missing.
I gave much thought to a a 6.17mm (.243") round, but it came out bigger than I wanted. I wanted an approximate weight of .029 lbs per round for the standard-cased ammo, but I wanted a bullet of greater caliber than the .224. If you look at it, .236 is right in the middle (the mean of .243 and .224 is .2335). In fact, you could say I'm already using a 6mm bullet, because the true diameter of the .236 is 6mm (the true diameter of .243s is 6.17, but you guys knew that). Nominally, however, the round is 5.85mm. I really want the round to be comparable to 5.56 in weight, even if it will be heavier.
 
Last edited:
There isn't much supply of .236" bullets either, but there was at one time a wildcat known as the "23 1/2" and the originator had to get them somewhere. Schroeder still listed them as recently as 1997; I have nothing later.

If you are serious about taking this past the Internet Discussion level of development, you will probably just have to suck it up and have swage dies made to suit.

Pac-Nor will make you a barrel at their regular price, if .234" is close enough.
 
.234" is fine.
I will have to do a lot to take this past fancy PS images and concept, but thankfully I'm going to college for mechanical engineering in a gun-friendly state. I think I should be able to do research on it for real. Maybe I'll even write my Master's dissertation on it.
 
Been thinking about this again, and I think that a 107-108 grain .243" bullet would actually be better.
Could probably run a bit faster, and the BC of the 107s is summat like the Grendel, so...
 
So you're basically look looking at 6mm-.223/6x45mm with heavy bullets now?

From what I can see it's been done but it's very easy to get into excessively high pressures.
 
the aforementioned 6mmXC is great. I've been shooting one a while now and love it. 6x47 (necked down 6.5x47 lapua) is nearly identical in every way except you get lapua brass instead of norma/tubb brass, and small vs large primers.
 
So you're basically look looking at 6mm-.223/6x45mm with heavy bullets now?

From what I can see it's been done but it's very easy to get into excessively high pressures.
Yeah, but with a shorter case (40.5mm).
And I am only looking to do 2650 fps.
 
the aforementioned 6mmXC is great. I've been shooting one a while now and love it. 6x47 (necked down 6.5x47 lapua) is nearly identical in every way except you get lapua brass instead of norma/tubb brass, and small vs large primers.
6mmXC is fine for benchrest, this is supposed to be a military caliber.
And as light as possible.
 
Nolo said:
Yeah, but with a shorter case (40.5mm).
And I am only looking to do 2650 fps.

I don't think you can do it.

Hodgdon has load data for 6x45mm. The heaviest bullets they list are 100gr and they're just barely getting over 2600 fps with max loads. Adding a few grains of bullet weight and subtract some case capacity doesn't improve the situation.

Some of the new non-canister double-base ball powders they've been playing with might make it possible, but that's pure speculation at this point.
 
I don't think you can do it.

Hodgdon has load data for 6x45mm. The heaviest bullets they list are 100gr and they're just barely getting over 2600 fps with max loads. Adding a few grains of bullet weight and subtract some case capacity doesn't improve the situation.

Some of the new non-canister double-base ball powders they've been playing with might make it possible, but that's pure speculation at this point.
K.
I'll continue to look at it, though.
It's nice because it would fit into an M16 OAL...
 
6mmXC is fine for benchrest, this is supposed to be a military caliber.
And as light as possible.

i think you've misunderstood what this cartridge was invented for.

good luck
 
Right now you're going to run into limits of pressure or case capacity no matter how you slice it. The only thing that can really change that is advancements in propellant technology.

So within the envelope defined by the AR/M-16 platform in terms of pressure and OAL, the only direction you can go to improve ballistic performance (in terms of bullet weight/ballistic coefficient/velocity) over the 5.56x45mm is to go to a fatter cartridge family. Obviously this is what's been done with the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC. The stuff GunTech has done based on the 7.62x45mm Czech round has intrigued me.

Of course this tends to run contrary to your goal of minimal weight. TANSTAAFL.
 
Right now you're going to run into limits of pressure or case capacity no matter how you slice it. The only thing that can really change that is advancements in propellant technology.

So within the envelope defined by the AR/M-16 platform in terms of pressure and OAL, the only direction you can go to improve ballistic performance (in terms of bullet weight/ballistic coefficient/velocity) over the 5.56x45mm is to go to a fatter cartridge family. Obviously this is what's been done with the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC. The stuff GunTech has done based on the 7.62x45mm Czech round has intrigued me.

Of course this tends to run contrary to your goal of minimal weight. TANSTAAFL.
No, but there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch.
GunTech started that stuff because of a thread I started. I am familiar with the work.
Propellant technology, contrary to popular belief, I believe is not yet at its apex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top