We've Missed the Boat By Not Making 6x45 The Primary AR15 Cartridge

[VoodooMountain]

Regardless of bullet restrictions the .223 is a varmint cartridge. It can never get away from that - too small and too light to be suitable for CXP2 game (or humans of the same size). It's not legal for CXP2 game in many places either.

Actually, no, you've totally failed to understand my logic. Show me a .30-30 load that can keep it's bullet within the manufacturer's intended operating window at 350 yards, and we can talk. Only there is no such load, because all .30-30 bullets have horrible BCs. The 6x45 can do it no problem. And I can say from experience that the 100gr partition does exactly what you'd want at the low end of its designed operating velocity range: it expands and almost always gives through-penetration, resulting in a fast drop and massive blood trail.

It's perfectly functional and a designed application of the bullet. Just ask call up Nosler and ask them.

That makes a 243 Winchester with a 95 gr ballistic tip a 550 yard deer gun

Sierra states their 30-30 bullet (#2000) when launched at 2200-2400 fps from a handgun is good to 150-200 yards which gives it a velocity of about 1600 fps at that range, and that is at the higher end.

So, from a rifle that can obtain 2500 fps it would give that bullet 300 yards to drop off to 1600fps.

I say again, the 30/30 nor the 25 sharps or 6x45 are 300 yard deer runs for anything other than a trick shot. The 30/30 is Not a consistent 300 yard deer gun out of a bolt, lever, or contender.

Killing an animal quickly requires more than a bullet that expands, as I mentioned earlier . Why not just use a varmint bullet since it will expand at an even lower velocity? For that matter, hardcast bullets can work great and without expansion. There is much more going on in terminal ballistics than what you are mentioning.





I have done quite a bit of bullet testing in media for reduced loads and many bullets will expand well below their listed velocity and all bullets become erratic performers when used at the lower end.

I fully understand your support for more energy out of the platform but there isn't 1 caliber that can do it all. The 308 comes close but recoil, weight, platform reliably, and cost hold it back.

 

[Llama Bob]

That makes a 243 Winchester with a 95 gr ballistic tip a 550 yard deer gun

Sierra states their 30-30 bullet (#2000) when launched at 2200-2400 fps from a handgun is good to 150-200 yards which gives it a velocity of about 1600 fps at that range, and that is at the higher end.

So, from a rifle that can obtain 2500 fps it would give that bullet 300 yards to drop off to 1600fps.

I say again, the 30/30 nor the 25 sharps or 6x45 are 300 yard deer runs for anything other than a trick shot. The 30/30 is Not a consistent 300 yard deer gun out of a bolt, lever, or contender.





I have done quite a bit of bullet testing in media for reduced loads and many bullets will expand well below their listed velocity and all bullets become erratic performers when used at the lower end.

I fully understand your support for more energy out of the platform but there isn't 1 caliber that can do it all. The 308 comes close but recoil, weight, platform reliably, and cost hold it back.

If you really believe (incorrectly) that the partition doesn't work in the velocity window Nosler designed it for, take it up with Nosler.

 

[adcoch1]

Actually the big weight savings between 223 and other infantry arms ammo is in the brass case. A 5.56 brass is a lot lighter than even a 7.62x39, so the 6mm projectile weight difference isn't much increase by comparison... And I also agree with putting the biggest hole in a target as possible, but ammo weight IS a consideration, just ask anyone who ever carried a lmg anywhere...

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

 

[Dr.Rob]

Just pointing out the same argument was made against the .276 Garand.

No reason to ditch a billion rounds and rechamber a million rifles for an ungrade in performance when what we have will do.

Hence ss109, open tip match etc for 5.56 rather than redo the whole logistics system.

6mm/223 was very popular in single shot pistols, no reason you can't have an AR chambered for it.

 

[Jim Watson]

Yes, the .223 AR is a done deal. We are getting about all there is to be had out of it, but no point making small incremental improvements like going up one notch on the caliber with the same case.

I am more concerned with keeping the boffins from making the NEXT generation infantry rifle a smallbore. The development of cased and caseless telescoped ammo has been done with .223 bullets to allow ready comparison. I just hope they are not stuck in the groove, a whole new design for gun and ammo would be the right time to change to a mid-caliber.

 

[Llama Bob]

Just pointing out the same argument was made against the .276 Garand.

No reason to ditch a billion rounds and rechamber a million rifles for an ungrade in performance when what we have will do.

Hence ss109, open tip match etc for 5.56 rather than redo the whole logistics system.

6mm/223 was very popular in single shot pistols, no reason you can't have an AR chambered for it.

Oh, I agree we're not going to fix the problem. Replacing every rifle in the military is actually cheap as military things go - it would cost about 2.5 billion dollars (about the same as scaling back the F35 program by 2% for context). But there's no way we'll do it - so many people have their careers tied up in the boondoggle that is the 5.56 that they will never allow a replacement.

Since we've failed so many times to fix the .223 round, I think we ought to start a research program to create varmint-sized muslims. It's time to think outside the box

 

[z7]

There is a lot of hatred on here for one of the most widly used, most successful, battle tested, cartridges of all time. Yes when using just one bullet it is very helpful to have a bigger faster bullet. But understanding how we fight goes a long way to understanding why the 5.56 is still in use, still effective and will stay around for a while

being light weight and low recoil allows for high volume of fire. It is very accurate out to 500 or so. Are there better rounds for stopping men? Yes.
Are there better rounds for volume of fire? Yes. Does the 5.56 work? You are crazy if you say no. The modern loads work. It is not the best tool/round for a specific job, but it is pretty good at several jobs, and a single man can carry a healthy amount of it.

And when our guys are doing special missions under special authority they use special 5.56 rds that are all copper and look alot like barnes tsx. . . For working in close with the targets

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Llama Bob]

being light weight and low recoil allows for high volume of fire.

Which has been an abject failure in and of itself. In the current wars we're shooting about 250,000 rounds for every kill (up from about 100,000/kill in Vietnam). In other words, the entire ammo loadout of an infantry COMPANY isn't close to enough to get even one expected kill. Put another way, our rifleman are noisemakers, not enemy killers.

Our rifle tactics suck just as badly as our rifles - actually arguably far worse - but that's a different topic.

 

[z7]

We may not be killing as many enemy per round as we did in Vietnam, but we are not bringing home as many in body bags either. War has changed, the M1 30-06 is a legend, but it is a different world and i am going to politely agree to disagree with most everything you have said. It is imperfect, can be improved, but after 50 yrs of service, generations of soldiers and marines carrying it into battle, countless enemies defeated, the m16/m4 will go down in history as one of the most successful small arms ever,

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Llama Bob]

We may not be killing as many enemy per round as we did in Vietnam

You're missing the point - neither the Vietnam nor GWOT numbers are even vaguely acceptable. You've got a company with about 175 guys. The basic infantry guys carry 210 rounds. The machine gun guys somewhat more - say 50,000 rounds total loadout for the company. It takes either 100,000 or 250,000 to get ONE KILL. That means an entire company can fire off it's entire loadout, and 4 times out of 5 they will not kill a single opponent. Given typical casualty vs kill rates, it's quite likely they won't get so much as a single hit.

In other words, the small arms fire of our military is so ineffective as to have essentially no impact. It does make noise though

 

[VoodooMountain]

I think 1 kill per 250k rounds fired is a bit contrived. There has to be more to this number.

Is it specifically small arms fire?

Are they getting this figure by simply looking over the amount of ammo ordered? I imagine part of this ammo is stored, damaged, or used for testing.

How much dang suppression fire do we use?

These numbers just don't add up

Did we start enlisting storm troopers?

 

[barnbwt]

Grendel.



That is all

 

[newfalguy101]

7mm08 anyone?

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

Wont fit in an AR-15/M-16 gun, it takes a step up to the AR-10....



Whats CXP2???

 

[Llama Bob]

Grendel.



That is all

The 6.5 BadIdea? Tell me all about this poorly designed cartridge

 

[Llama Bob]

Wont fit in an AR-15/M-16 gun, it takes a step up to the AR-10....



Whats CXP2???

http://www.chuckhawks.com/cxp.htm

 

[adcoch1]

CXP2 is deer sized game. I believe it includes gat and sheep species within a specific weight range. Amd the 7mm-08 comment was for a new battle rifle system, not for the ar15. I just really like how nice to shoot 7mm-08 is in a lightweight rifle...

Sent from my LGLS740 using Tapatalk

 

[entropy]

I think 1 kill per 250k rounds fired is a bit contrived. There has to be more to this number.

Is it specifically small arms fire?

Are they getting this figure by simply looking over the amount of ammo ordered? I imagine part of this ammo is stored, damaged, or used for testing.

How much dang suppression fire do we use?

These numbers just don't add up

Did we start enlisting storm troopers?

A lot of those rounds in that count are CAS; Apaches, Cobras, Spectres, and fast movers with guns that fire 50-100 rounds per second. Basically, if a patrol comes under fire and can engage/supress the enemy long enough, CAS is called in to saturate the target area. That's where your round count climbs.

And yes, some is lost, damaged, captured, etc.

 

[barnbwt]

The 6.5 BadIdea? Tell me all about this poorly designed cartridge

Hook, line, and stinker, in four minutes

 

[Llama Bob]

Hook, line, and stinker, in four minutes

Oh believe me, I remember you trying to sell people on badly designed cartridges before. And I remembered you had nothing intelligent to say.

 

[Merle1]

IIRC from the bench rest boys, the 6x45 was picky to load for.

 

[Llama Bob]

I think 1 kill per 250k rounds fired is a bit contrived. There has to be more to this number.

Is it specifically small arms fire?

In general, yes. When the Army calculates it, they can see the ammo move through the procurement system so they can see what goes to field units, and rule out ammo that for example goes to aviation units.

I realize the numbers are surprising, but they've stayed more or less constant (between 100,000 and 250,000) from Vietnam onwards. If anything they're too low, because the kill number used is an estimate of ALL enemies killed, not just those killed by infantry.

The simple fact of the matter is that our infantry small arms tactics are totally ineffective. Although that's not really the point of this thread - it's that the .223 is simply an inferior idea that got entrenched by bad military decision making and now we're stuck with it.

 

[Llama Bob]

IIRC from the bench rest boys, the 6x45 was picky to load for.

For the purpose of achieving conventional field accuracy, I can't imagine why...

 

[barnbwt]

Oh believe me, I remember you trying to sell people on badly designed cartridges before. And I remembered you had nothing intelligent to say.

Geez, so serious, and in a silly caliber-war thread, to boot (oh wait, that you started, my bad )

You do realize that the difference between ANY 6mm-6.8mm cartridge that'll fit in an M4 is exactly moot, compared to the performance of either 5.56 or >30 caliber options, yes? And even then they aren't super huge differences inside of hundreds of yards. Therefore the minute differences between them will be either marginal or subjective (set by personal biases or preferences, such as my favor for high BC projectiles and low aspect ratio bottleneck cartridges)

Face it, the AR15 is simply chambered in the wrong round. It's sad we're too far down the road to fix it.

In reality you have to hand it to the designers; the rifle truly was pretty optimized for the 5.56 cartridge, with very little room to exploit more power or decrease weight (either rifle or ammo). The only reason there is still any room at all to improve today is due to a) relatively minor bullet/powder tech advances and b) the fact we've ditched the original long barrel of the M16 for SBRs intended for semi-auto usage. So we can do things a little bit more powerful, but that's okay since we're doing aimed semi-auto fire rather than mag-dumps against an ambush, and a slightly fatter bullet makes more sense because the barrel is shorter (hot rod rules re: bore & stroke and power transfer), the resultant higher recoil of heavier/larger diameter bullets driven at high pressures still acceptable due to the decreased focus on 'controllable' automatic fire. The lost barrel length/weight in could theoretically make heavier ammunition tolerable (theoretically )

I realize the numbers are surprising, but they've stayed more or less constant (between 100,000 and 250,000) from Vietnam onwards. If anything they're too low, because the kill number used is an estimate of ALL enemies killed, not just those killed by infantry.

Yeah, the figures are about as useful as "man hours/overall cost" as a measure of how efficient your workforce is. I mean, you can plan around the figure if it doesn't move much, but it isn't very informative in and of itself (way too broad a perspective to draw specific conclusions from)

What's funny, is the figure has stayed the same since 'Nam while our tactics drastically changed. I'll bet the pounds of high explosive per enemy casualty (assuming a count is even possible given the whole 'red mist' aspect) has steadily decreased since WWII, though, while the consumption of fuel per casualty has been filling the void . The real message may be that infantry rifles simply aren't a huge driver of strategic results, and therefore aren't effected very much themselves by strategic changes. Which has been kind of the consensus reached by anyone who's job is to determine whether a cartridge swap is worthwhile, and it's apparently no one outside DARPA with the LSAT crew.

 

[Merle1]

For the purpose of achieving conventional field accuracy, I can't imagine why...

Just a guess, but perhaps that's because of a quirky pressure curve, which wouldn't help a gas gun.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I've never heard of a 6mm anything being considered to replace the 5.56 NATO cartridge.

I thought all of the latest research pointed to the 6.8x43 and the 6.5x38 as the optimal cartridge.

Since 2000, two new attempts at a better rifle cartridge have been made. First on the scene was the 6.8x43 Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge), which was a joint effort between Remington and a group within USSOCOM. After testing various calibers they settled on 6.8mm as having the best blend of characteristics. The 6.8x43 typically fires a 115-grain bullet at 2,590 fps. It not only demonstrates far superior terminal effectiveness and barrier penetration than the 5.56mm at short range; its advantage increases with range.

The other new cartridge is the 6.5x38 Grendel. Normally firing a 123-grain bullet at around 2,520 fps, this matches the 6.8mm in power but the heavier, more aerodynamic bullet matches the energy delivered by the 7.62mm M80 ball at long range, offering the potential to replace the 7.62x51 as well as the 5.56x45. Weight, power and recoil of these new cartridges are both roughly midway between the two existing service rounds.

Recent experience of asymmetric warfare in Afghanistan has re-emphasised the importance of effective small-arms fire, and at much longer ranges than expected. A British Army study has shown that more than half of all small-arms attacks by the Taliban (using weapons in 7.62x54R caliber such as the Russian PKM LMG) take place at between 300 and 900 metres. That is beyond the effective range of 5.56 mm weapons and has led to the allocation of 7.62mm machine guns and even sniper rifles to foot patrols, despite the unwelcome extra weight of guns and ammunition.

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1032

Of course I'm not packing ammo or shooting bad guys but I've always considered .223 a varmint cartridge. In some states .22 was determined inadequate for deer long before the 5.56 came on the scene. I think the 5.56x45 became a military cartridge by accident.

I'm looking for a target rifle right now. I think 6.5 or larger is optimal. Not looking at anything smaller.