Military Stuffsz

The primary issue with the new 6.8mm program and the original LSAT Caseless weapon program

2025-08-30T17:07:00.000-07:00

The primary issue with the new 6.8mm program and the original LSAT Caseless weapon program

A lot of questions have been asked on the new 6.8mm round the U.S. military adopted, and why it was willing to adopt a far heavier and higher recoiling weapon to replace the 5.56mm weapon; the reason why the program was implemented at all was because, originally, the new weapon was intended to be the same weight and have the same recoil. The United States military had successfully managed to produce such a weapon in the LSAT program, and only question came down to exact implementation of the rounds, which calibers would be chosen and which companies would produce the weapon. The entire program seemed to have been screwed up in execution, as the M7 is not a very well liked gun, particularly reliable or novel in design and is extremely heavy at nearly 12-13 pounds loaded, a lot heavier than the M4 carbine at 7.5 pounds.

To explain the program as succinctly as possible, the 6.8mm program that produced the Sig .277 fury cartridge and M7 spear which has now been adopted by the U.S. military had it's origins in the LSAT program, or the Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program, which would later evolve in to the NGSW program. [1][2] The LSAT program managed to produce both caseless and polymer cased versions of the standard U.S. and NATO military 5.56mm and 7.62mm cartridges, as well as a rifle and machine gun in both calibers. A company called Textron managed to reproduce the G11's caseless propellant and produce very similar rounds in different calibers, utilizing lower temperature burning propellants with a much higher temperature resistance which were less likely to cook off or overheat the weapon, which was the key issue with caseless weapons previously. The company also managed to successfully produce functional and reliable weapons, that were said in testing to be more reliable than the guns they were intended to replace, particularly the M249 and AR-15. The weapons also had less felt recoil and were far lighter weight than what they were replacing.

Without a brass case, both of these new cartridges were approximately half the weight of what they intended to replace, with the 5.56mm variant being approximately 6.2 grams vs. 12.5 grams, and the 7.62 NATO rounds being approximately 13 grams vs. 25.5 grams for their previous brass cased versions. This would bring down the weight of a standard magazine (30 rounds) from 1 pound to half a pound for 5.56mm, and from 1.3 pounds (20 rounds) to roughly .65 for the 7.62mm NATO. A standard soldiers combat load-out is typically between 210 and 300 rounds, or 7 to 10 magazines, and a soldier with the newer caseless rounds could now carry 420 to 600 rounds of ammunition for the same weight, or could carry ammunition such as the 7.62mm NATO that was twice as powerful. Of particular note, the 7.62mm variant when caseless ended up being almost identical to the 5.56mm's weight in brass cases, or, allowed a roughly identical amount of ammunition to be carried. The 7.62mm NATO is almost exactly twice as heavy as the 5.56mm, and by being caseless it halved the weight of the 7.62mm, allowing it to become almost exactly the same weight as the 5.56mm with a brass case.

The weapons themselves utilized a long action or constant recoil style of system, similar to a stoner 63, so it had very light felt recoil. A 10 pound gun, known as the LSAT machine gun, was capable of replicating the M249 at 17 pounds with less recoil and better controllability, while allowing a soldier to carry twice as many rounds, or shave off roughly 20-25 pounds off their carry load-out for the same load out of 1000 rounds instead (10 + 15-18 pounds vs. 17 + 30-33 pounds). The project was also able to develop a 14 pound 7.62mm NATO variant, that had very light felt recoil and good reliability, but allowed twice as much ammunition to be carried as an M240 machine gun. With the weapon being lighter than an M249 with the same weight ammunition, but having a round as powerful as the 7.62mm NATO, a question arises which is, is it possible to replace the 5.56mm soldiers currently use with a caseless 7.62mm round? Due to the weight of the gun, the ammunition, and it's recoil, it suddenly became possible for a 7.62mm rifle or machine gun to equal a 5.56mm rifle or machine gun in capabilities. You essentially could carry the exact same amount of ammo in an exact same sized gun that recoiled in the exact same way but with double the power and far greater range and armor penetration.

In addition, for it's energy level the 7.62mm caliber has never been the most aerodynamically efficient design, or the best suited caliber for armor penetration. The same company also developed a 6.5mm variant, that was able to provide better performance than the 7.62mm NATO with approximately 1.5 to 2 times the sectional density, which translated to double the range and armor penetration for the same weight and size cartridge. It also has a much flatter trajectory, shorter time to target and is generally more accurate, being superior than the 7.62mm NATO sniper round in terms of ballistics, but for every round. The new meta basically became, if we can have a gun with all the same low weight, light recoil and high ammunition capacity as 5.56mm, with a round that is actually even longer range and more powerful than a 7.62mm NATO, why not adopt it? The project could also switch to polymer rounds by changing a single part, essentially a chamber which was not connected to the barrel, as the guns had a swinging chamber design which allowed for quick and easy caliber swapping and reduced temperature build up as it's swinging chamber helped to dump out heat and gas as well as improve airflow to the part of the gun that gets the hottest when firing, increasing it's temperature tolerance, a particular issue for caseless rounds.

The military found that polymer cases were better than brass cased rounds or steel for reducing heat build up as polymer is an insulator which absorbed the heat, while the caseless rounds were lighter. The polymer round were about 30% heavier than the caseless ammunition, but still much lighter than standard rifle cartridges they were intended to replace. The question of the program at this point became a matter of polymer vs. caseless rounds, with both being much lighter than what they intended to replace, weapons and ammunition, and with both being easily interchangeable by only swapping a few parts, in this case the swinging chamber, necessary due to the slightly different cartridge shape.

Choosing a single round for LSCO operations and thermal vision optics

Both as a desire to have a longer range weapon and a weapon that could pierce Russian and Chinese body armor while retaining the small size of the 5.56mm, more of an emphasis was placed on the 6.5mm or what would later be the 6.8mm version (which are only off by .004 inches, with the 6.5mm being a .264 inch caliber weapon and the 6.8mm being a .268, despite their nomenclature intended to make differentiating the two easy). The military wanted a smaller, lighter more compact weapon that would be useful for close quarters combat, but also be useful in LSCO or large scale combat operations against China or Russia. Essentially, to fight the Russians and Chinese, you would want a range advantage, as being able to shoot the enemy before they can get within range of you is a huge advantage, and this was an ability that was considered important in Afghanistan as well, which had mountainous terrain and open deserts where it was possible to see for miles in every direction.

Particularly when fighting insurgents with a PKM, Dskha .50 cal or light mortars, it was useful to have a really long range weapon, but the weight and size of these weapons were often prohibitive for American use. If soldiers came under sniper or machine gun fire while using 5.56mm weapons, they could often be pinned down and have little ability to return fire, which lead to the adoption of heavier weapons such as adding marksmen to every squad with modernized M14's, such as the M14 EBR, and later on HK417's and other weapons. While a problem while fighting terrorists, it is also an even greater problem in LSCO operations, as unfairly matched battles are quite common. There is no rule in war that a soldier with a 5.56mm must go up against a similarly short ranged weapon, and so when facing an enemy with longer range weapons it quickly becomes a quagmire to stay pinned down until you can get some kind of angle on the enemy. However, in urban environments or trench warfare, a smaller weapon for maneuvering in close quarters is desired, and they are easier to handle in general, while the lighter ammunition of 5.56mm rounds means far more ammo can be carried. What these newer weapons offered was a weapon that was as light and small as a 5.56mm weapon, but with a caliber that not only met the capabilities of 7.62mm NATO, but greatly exceeded it.

The United states military also worked on a .338 machine gun as well, specifically to be able to match the effective range of a .50 cal, but be far lighter weight and smaller, so that it could be more easily carried on foot in the mountains. A key element that made longer ranges far more viable was the use of auto-aiming thermal vision optics, which made hitting targets at long range far more practical, especially moving targets like drones. With this new optic, the primary limitation to the weapon came down to ballistics, as in the capability of the round itself, and relied less on the marksmens ability such as in the past. A 25x zoom optic with the ability to see at night or in dark rooms, where all living creatures, vehicles and weapons glow like orbs from the background and that can automatically track targets and aim the gun for you really had the potential to change how we fought outright. The improvement in our soldiers accuracy via training, as well as better optics, meant we could really take advantage of these new weapons capabilities. Soldiers benefit from night vision and thermal vision in close quarters combat, as much as they do at long range, and thermal vision hosts a multitude of useful features like being able to see footprints, see heat signatures through camouflage, see through smoke and fog (allowing us to blind the enemy while we can see clearly), see as easily in the day as at night, and it gives the ability to autotrack targets with them standing out from the background. Thermal vision has also been used to spot landmines or IED's underground, as thermal vision can see a few feet underground and through thin walls and rooftops, allowing it to when adjusted properly see where the enemy might be hiding or where equipment might be concealed.

On top of this, mechanization has become a lot more common, so soldiers are within close range of a vehicle at all times that can store extra water, food, ammunition, and other supplies, further reducing how much weight soldiers need to carry in to combat. With that, heavier weapons and equipment or even potentially bringing two weapons with you becomes viable, as you can simply leave additional equipment in the vehicle if you don't need it rather than carry it on foot. If a soldier wanted to switch back to a substantially smaller 5.56mm weapon, they much more easily could with mechanization, and the potentially heavier weight of the newer weapon is fundamentally far less of an issue when extra equipment and ammunition can be carried by the vehicle instead. Thermal vision optics, mechanization and caseless/polymer ammunition allowed for essentially a new meta to emerge. Range can be taken advantage of, weight can be mitigated, and with better handling characteristics, there is a real option for heavier weapons to replace lighter one's if the right designs are used.

Conclusion of the program and 6.8mm Fury (NGSW)
The conclusion of the program was that the focus should shift to a 6.8mm cartridge, leading to the NGSW or Next Generation Squad Weapon program. This was because the weapons and ammunition were the same size as the 5.56mm with the same recoil and handling characteristics, and due to the benefit of these weapons in large scale combat operations as well as against terrorists. The improved armor penetration and power was worth it when trying to defeat level III or level IV plates, which both the Russians and Chinese are using in increasing numbers, and in 20-30 years may be using a lot more commonly. Tangentially, as night vision becomes more common, thermal vision is easily able to replace it, being far more effective with far more features, and so it would behoove the U.S. to adopt thermal vision if only to maintain an edge over our enemies. The rounds and weapons also offered a significant improvement in performance for machine guns, particularly in regards to weight and recoil.

Furthermore if the U.S. is going to replace the 7.62mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO weapons with a brand new cartridge and weapon anyways, why not use a 6.5mm or 6.8mm instead, which had far better ballistics for the same weight and energy. Once the program was completed, the military issued a new program to create an open competition for a new weapon using the 6.8mm cartridge's ballistics. Most the competitors chose polymer cases as it was easier for them to replicate this than caseless rounds, although the original company intended to allow the weapon to switch between both calibers by swapping out a few parts. So, the program was essentially based around a polymer or caseless 6.8mm round, with 6.8mm being chosen over 6.5mm due to the military's prior development of the .276 Pederson and 6.8mm Remington rounds.

However, pretty much the entire purpose of the original program was shot down when sig's variant was chosen for some unknown reason, which lead to an 80,000 PSI bimetal case variant, that is exactly as heavy as the 7.62mm it intends to replace and has none of the recoil reduction or lower weight, except in the M250 light machine gun version, where they stole quite a bit from the original gun design (and the company sued SIG over this). The bullpup by comparison to the RM277, a competitor to both Textron and Sig, had very light felt recoil for a rifle of it's power and was lighter weight as well as more reliable than the M7, and it is kind of a wonder it wasn't chosen all things considered.

It may seem weird to some, but the reason why the 6.8mm which is such a heavier caliber was chosen was due to the reduced recoil, lower weight of the weapon, and lower weight of the ammunition in the original program. It made sense to replace with the 5.56mm with something exactly the same weight as the 5.56mm but with double the energy and quadruple the armor penetration, but now that the sig was chosen it kind of flies in the face of the entire purpose of the program. Although all kinds of shenanigans can be considered such as Biden's administration disrupting the program or some kind of weird partiality to SIG given that literally all recent military small arms contracts have gone to them despite their less than stellar weapon designs (recent controversy with their pistols coming to mind after several people have been killed due to accidental misfires), it would make sense that, instead of adopting these bimetal cases that something like the RM277 or Textron's weapons be chosen, which can meet or exceed the requirements of the original concept.

By no means is the SIG spear a bad weapon, and the M250 is particularly well liked. However, it's massive size at approximately 12-13 pounds and longer length than the M4 carbine make it difficult to see as a replacement for it. Further, the weight of the ammunition is twice as high, and hardly an effort was made to mitigate felt recoil. It would stand to reason that recoil mitigating weapons such as those developed by Textron or the General Dynamics RM277, which not only had far less recoil, but a lower weight, and shorter overall length, making it competitive with the M4 it was intended to replace. While bullpup weapons are generally shorter, lighter, and better balanced, overall a lot of options existed which were never taken advantage of. Even SIG seemed surprise it won the contract, and many of the arguments against the RM277 such as difficulty producing barrels in the polymer cased variants or caseless weapons, are criticisms that can be leveled at the 80,000 PSI bimetal case sig weapon. It seems almost ludicrous that the worst performing weapon was chosen that offered none of the weight saving advantages of the original program, and that once again the U.S. is out of a caseless or polymer cased weapon by weird shenanigans.

WWII - How the German military was hampered without sufficient oil supply, and when they begin to lose in 1944

2021-01-19T04:02:00.008-08:00

WWII - How the German military was hampered without sufficient oil supply, and when they begin to lose in 1944

There is little as argued about in the public sphere, in the field of history, than with wars, and little as wrong in the mainstream public's historical understanding of events, than of wars. In part due to propaganda, romanticization of war, a failure to understand basic military strategies, tactics, and logistics, and the sheer complexity of history in general, combined with the difficulty of recording events on the battlefield given their sheer danger and sporadic nature, much real information is actually lost, and so when combined with one's own personal interpretation of events, allows for a broad range of views to develop. Each person likes to believe they have the real, true answer, and that other's are wrong; this is true even for this article, and as a result much misinformation persists as history has no unbiased actors to record events. There is often a saying, that history is written by the victor, but this is generally untrue; history is written from multiple points of view, and unless the loser is entirely annihilated, their points of view are often considered and incorporated in to the narrative as well. The Americans full well include the Soviet and German side of events in to their own historical analysis as well, which further pollutes and muddies the water, despite the attempt to tell both sides. Each side wants to take credit for having "won" the war, even if they were the cause of it, and insists their ideas and strategies were superior. Personal opinion's on these events have even been pushed so aggressively on the public as to be taught in public schools, such as with the propaganda of the soviets during the cold war, claiming fascism had overtaken the west, and that the Soviet Union was the last free country in the world, a claim echoed by various American politicians, including the longest serving U.S. congressmen, Bernie Sanders. There is therefore also a political element for why people will claim one side of the war won or lost, and this tends to lead to individuals promoting a particular side or narrative of events, to try and promote the reputation of a particular organization or strategy and other subscribing to the theory. The goal of this article will be in part to dispel some of the rumors and provide some hard facts to counter various narratives, chiefly the Soviet one's, a country known for lying and propaganda, much of which still persists today. It also will be designed as a deeper exploration in to as fascinating a historical topic as WWII in general.

Specifically, it will delve in to the German oil and resource supply, and when the German forces begin losing the war in WWII, which only occurs after invasions by the U.S. seriously materially damage the German military's ability to wage war and occupy territory. It also will explore hypothetical concepts of if the Soviets or British could have won the war alone, or if the U.S. was needed, and the logistics of war and WWII in general. It's difficult to overstate the importance of the American manufacturing machine; the overwhelming majority of key resources of the war and damage inflicted on the Germans is done by the Americans, despite their late entrance in to the war. The Americans by August of 1944 through strategic bombing runs facilitated in part by grabbing air-bases in European territory captured from the Germans, relentlessly bomb German targets, and cripple their oil production to nearly a 1/3rd, reduce their food supply by 40%, cut off the majority of their radio and communication systems, disrupt virtually all the German railway lines, and capture key strategic territory which cuts off German field units from their logistics supply lines which they must maintain a close distance to. The Germans heavily rely on railways due to a lack of oil and trucks like the Americans, and so they effectively have two army groups, one mobile force relying on their limited fuel supply and motorized vehicles, and another relying on trains; with just 8% of the german army being motorized or mechanized, they rely heavily on their trains for logistics supply which they most maintain a close distance to, which are quickly destroyed by American bombing runs. The German military, paralyzed in movement and communication, and without resources to fight, quickly surrender as the Americans rush in to Europe and liberate most of Europe piece by piece. Up until this point in the war Germany is gaining ground every year in the war, and only after the American invasion and bombing runs are the Germans sufficiently hampered to allow an allied attack in to the heart of Germany. It takes the Germans over 6 years to capture most of western Europe, and the Americans manage to liberate it in only 5 months.

Just as over 90% of Russian railways were provided by the Americans, 2/3rds of their vehicles, most of their radios, over 50% of their aviation fuel, and sufficient food to keep the Soviets alive (who have lost over 40% of their agricultural production by this point), the Americans are capable of doing the reverse to the germans, crippling the Germans by severely hampering their communication systems, oil supply, food supply, railways, and factory production of goods in general. Despite the Notion by some who insist the Soviets were winning by this point in the war and in 1944 due to the ability to capture small pieces of their territory back, after being supplied by the Americans, the Germans are still on their way to conquer the rest of Europe, Africa, and the Middle east, while the soviets can barely cling to their own territory and do not manage to capture all of it back until after the U.S. invades. While there is no intent to diminish the roles played by the Soviet Union, British, Finnish, French and other forces and their sacrifices during the war, a simple goal of this article is to explain when the turning point of the war truly begins from an objective standpoint, which is around June 6th 1944, or the time of D-Day. While many will detest that this is favorable to the American viewpoint, and thus must be automatically wrong, the objective facts are in the favor of the U.S. presence being the turning point of the war, which is backed up by the available evidence. Neither the Soviets nor the British can maintain serious offenses outside of their own countries, and thus do not have the capacity to invade in to the heart of Germany and stop the Germans, themselves. In the words of Joseph Stalin at the time: "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."

The Timelines

The one immutable characteristic of man's existence and the universe in general is time. While time is relative at some level, according to modern scientific theory pioneered by Einstein, there is a fixed general time to the start of the universe, that is unavoidable. Nothing can have occurred before something else and caused change in the past, so, a person pulling the trigger of a gun is what caused the gun to fire, and, not the other way around. Even if a few milliseconds are present in-between the time the trigger is pulled and the bullet is fired, there is sufficient time to make it impossible for the bullet being fired to have been what caused the trigger to be pulled. A bullet does not cause a gun to fire, and similarly, bombs do not travel back in time. Certain events occur at fixed points in history, and to dispel rumors' and debates, these exact, undeniable instances need to be used as concrete, clear evidence of a point. While there is far more to the debate of WWII than this, it's important to whittle down the key points to as simple and easily understood ideas as possible that are as easily proven, or else there is no foundation from which the rest can follow. Fixed dates are important not just as a matter of wrote memorization, but to understand what events lead to the next in history. Time is a never-ending flow of history, and so history is not made of arbitrary random events, but a series of events that lead to the next. One thing leads to another and, things rarely just "happen" suddenly without any obvious cause. It is not possible for an invasion by the Soviets in August of 1944 to cut off the German oil supply in June of 1944, two months prior, and so a classic narrative by the Soviet propaganda that they were the one's that managed to cut off the German oil supply through their invasion of Romania, which was ironically backed up with substantial American bombing runs, is wrong. It's important to dispel these false notions about the war, not just to settle petty squabbles, but to understand history.

Key to Crippling the entire german military is cutting off their oil supply. The Germans, who had issues with oil production for most of the war and before it, manage to produce enough oil to maintain their forces during most of the war, and continue producing oil throughout the entire war, actually peaking in 1943 before the U.S. lead invasion in germany, where it drops suddenly in 1944 and drops to virtually nothing by 1945. Already short on fuel, the Germans suffer substantially from this, and bombings in the summer and spring of 1944 cripple the german fuel supply, mostly starting in may, resulting in a 70% reduction of their oil production, or cutting it just 1/3rd of it's previous level, by august of 1944. While destroying their rails, communication systems, radar, food supply and other resources would be just as important, the German army simply could not operate it's vehicles without oil and so, their aircraft, tanks, trucks and other armored vehicles would not be able to function, paralyzing the german army. With just 8% mechanization the German army was easy to disrupt, and so their military was left depending entirely on rail which, was easily damaged and overtaken. While trucks can drive over damaged road or even off-road if need be for a short duration, trains must travel in a straight line on very specific train tracks, and so even slight changes to the train tracks can result in catastrophic derailing. When american bombing runs destroyed hundreds of miles of train tracks, the constant interrupted travel lead to the rails becoming almost useless and thus crippling the entire german army supply. Even worse than having limited resources was not having a method to provide what was left of it to their men in the field, forcing them to frequently withdraw. This allowed the Americans and it's allies along with it to quickly take ground from the Germans that in many cases they were practically forced to give up, and crippled their ability to fight other than with light infantry who largely were immobile and had limited ammunition supply, securing easy victory's across most of Europe. One only needs to look at Germany territory in 1943 in comparison to German territory in December of 1944 to realize how quickly the Germans lost most of their land. While it is true that other military's suffered far more deaths and causalities during the war, tragically, and may have even inflicted more losses to the german army in total (although most of the german army death's were due to exposure, such as from starving or freezing to death in the Soviet union), the Americans were critical to taking their territory from them, and thus ending German rule over it's conquered territories and occupying nations. The liberation of Europe would fall to America, of whom virtually no other country in the war had the ability to do. It was not enough for country's like the UK or the Soviet Union to survive, but it was necessary to mount an offensive campaign in to the heart of Europe and Germany itself, which would have been impossible given their own lack of resources, manpower, and general power projection necessary to send men abroad to fight in foreign territory. Fighting on the offensive is far harder than fighting on the defensive and one can never committ all of their troops to offensive combat, needing some to remain at home to defend their homeland.

German oil supply prior to D-Day and April Bombing runs of 1944

It's often been said that the German oil supply before April and June of 1944, and in general, was still exceedingly bad compared to the rest of Europe or other Developed countries, and this is largely true. Germany itself has no major petroleum reserves, despite an abundance of coal, and heavily relies on imports or synthetic fuel for oil production. The germans, so desperate for oil, consume coal in order to produce a form of synthetic fuel which can be consumed by their war machine, simulating wood-gas and that has a large composition of hydrogen and carbon monoxide dissolved in to water which is, highly explosive. For every 5 tons of coal, they can produce approximately 1 ton of synthetic fuel, and synthetic fuel costs were approximately 3-5 times as much as oil at the time, or approximately 25 cents per liter. Furthermore, it is an incredibly time-consuming and laborious task that, monetary issues aside, is difficult to perform requiring a large amount of exceptionally skilled scientists, and that is inherently difficult to store. This fuel is highly explosive and prone to leaking given that it is a form of gas dissolved and stored in to water, and so it is difficult to use in tanks and vehicles, and in part responsible for excessive wear and tear as well as reliability issues in the vehicles. Nonetheless with these Synthetic oil refineries and oil imported from Romania, Germany is more than capable of maintaining it's war machine abroad, despite the 1936 Embargo. In fact, German oil production peaks in 1943 and early 1944, exceeding it's supply before the war started, due to an ability to steal resources from other countries, civilian repurposing of oil to Germany, and by simply ramping up production for the war effort. The Germans are estimated by the allies to be producing 15% more than is needed to supply their war machine, and are capable of putting a small amount in to a strategic reserve, which indicates that they had more than they were consuming by this point in the war. There is no multi-year long strategic oil reserve of the germans, as oil goes bad in less than a year and it is difficult to store this volume of oil in containers, and so, while it is often portrayed that the Germans are "running low on oil" and cutting in to some kind of permanent reserve, the Germans continue to produce oil during the length of the entire war, only being substantially crippled by mid 1944 after U.S. bombings.

It's important to note that the Germans are increasing their fuel supply so that it can be understood that a failure to capture Soviet oil reserves in 1941 does not mean the defeat of the Germans. They not only continue the war for another 4 years, but, manage to capture more territory in Europe during this time, including Italy (a major power of the war), Albania, Greece, Croatia, Crete, and finish capturing most of France and other occupied territories. Simultaneously, they manage to push the British make to the UK who must give up most of their foreign territory in Europe by this point. They also manage to capture large pieces of Soviet territory, that while Soviet offenses manage to take back parts of in incredibly costly offenses (losing over half their manpower against the Germans due to deaths and casualties), materially do little to stop the German advance, particularly in the rest of the world. The Soviets who have their food and industrial manufacturing production cut in half, and are forced to using wallpaper as flour in their bread, are kept alive almost entirely through American food and railway imports, which prove crucial to winning the war. It is said by Stalin, that: "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war." and later by Boris Vadimovich Sokolov: "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources."

So while the Soviet Union is falling apart and the British pushed all the way back to their home Island, the Germans have reached peak war production of oil and machines, and there is little presence of any allied force inside of mainland Western Europe. Aside from a small number of largely ineffective partisans and remnant military forces, as well as western spies, there is a relatively small and muted presence of the allies in western Europe. Key elements of the allied war effort at this point focus on reconnaissance of the Germans, which reveal critically german oil reserves and synthetic plant locations, as well as radio communication systems, railways which transport over 90% of their military, important factory locations, military bases, and other critical infrastructure. While the importance of this cannot be denied, material gains against the Germans are minor, and despite significant bombing runs against the Germans starting from 1942 onwards by both the Americans and the British, these make little headway in seriously damaging the germans means of operations. Psychologically this forces the Germans to prepare for attacks from all directions and change some of their manufacturing methods, but it does little to physically hamper their overall production.

The state of Germany

The State of the Soviet Union

Georgy Zhukov: "Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war."

Joseph Stalin (leader of the Soviet union): "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."

Boris Vadimovich Sokolov: "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources."

It is difficult to overstate how poor the Soviets are faring during WWII, before the U.S. invasion of june 1944, and it's economic state in general.

State of the UK

General strategies and tactics

Cartridge comparison and design

2018-07-10T19:30:00.003-07:00

Cartridge comparison and design
sdf

Case design
sdf

Experimental Design concepts 6mm Experimental (110 grain, 850 m/s, G1 BC .617) -
6.5mm Experimental (150 grain, 850 m/s, G1 BC .710) -

The problem with high rates of fire

2017-02-23T02:33:00.004-08:00

The problem with high rates of fire
While many perceive a higher rate of fire in a firearm to improve it's combat effectiveness, generally speaking this is only true in a very limited number of circumstances. Either when attempting to blanket the sky in bullets, so as to intercept an incoming missile for example, or when trying to hit a moving target while also moving very quickly (such as in a helicopter), in general a higher rate of fire doesn't result in improved effectiveness of a firearm under ordinary combat conditions, especially in the use of infantry weapons. There's a few reasons as to why, but the primary reason is that shooting the same target 30 times, or 50 times as opposed to 5 or 10 usually doesn't result in substantial benefit over the ordinary weapon. An individual who is shot 5 times is generally no less incapacitated than someone shot 50, meaning that it's simply a waste of ammunition to use more rounds. As bullets travel in roughly the same pattern as the previous round before it, in the direction the barrel is facing, shooting lots of bullets doesn't mean lots of hits. Simply shooting bullets in random directions won't automatically guarantee hits, let alone kills or incapacitation, as one needs to aim with a firearm to make it effective and useful. Without aiming in between each shot, there is no guarantee that the bullets will hit their mark, and given how small bullets are, and how a few degrees can completely throw off the aim of the individual, makes randomly firing in different directions generally a bad idea. As bullets do not lock on to the nearest human being like a guided missile, the most likely event is that most bullets will miss. It takes something like 3,000 rounds per enemy kill in open combat with infantry (not including rounds used in training or fired by large machine guns), meaning there are already a tremendous amount of bullets wasted. "Spraying-and-praying" is a tactic so futile for combat that the U.S. army and marines removed the fully automatic firing selector from their rifles entirely from the 80's until just recently.

Especially with infantry, ammunition storage is a key concern. If a soldier is completely out of ammo in 10 seconds, a soldier won't last very long in a prolonged firefight. As the average soldier only carries about 300 rounds and this is 10 pounds, being able to shoot 20 rounds per second confers no particular advantage to most infantry engagements; being out of ammo in 15 seconds means the fight is over on your side. Even when fully automatic fire is available, it's used in short controlled bursts, usually directed at the same target to make it easier to hit the target, or to hit the target multiple times to ensure incapacitation. Disciplined, accurate shooting is particularly important for infantry. Rapid fire capabilities are more about convenience and maneuverability rather than raw firepower. The ability to shoot on the go or without having to fiddle with the gun in an exorbitantly tedious way allow for smooth operation during stressful situations or under harsh circumstances, which is primarily the goal of such a rate of fire. It also allows for defensive capabilities, where one can quickly lay down suppressive fire in the event where it's needed, warning the enemy not to get to close or else face a hail of bullets. It also confers an incredible advantage in the fast paced nature of close quarters combat, which is invaluable defensively. In the anti-air or anti-ground role (from the air), high rates of fire can be useful. But on the ground with infantry, it very rarely is.

Past about 600 RPM, there is very little tangible benefit to a higher rate of fire. A high rate of fire does come with certain drawbacks, such as wasting ammunition. But overheating, faster degradation of parts, higher recoil, and the need for stronger and usually heavier materials all contribute to problems associated with a high rate of fire. A firearm that shoots faster overheats faster, often exponentially so. Not only are more rounds fired in a shorter amount of time, but there's less time for the gases to escape the rifle. At certain rates of fire, gases simply can't escape the weapon in time and build up, thus increasing the pressure of the gun and it's temperature. There's also the added drawback of friction, which increases exponentially. 3 times the rate of fire doesn't just 3 mean 3 times the friction, but often much more than that. As a result the weapon not only overheats even faster, but also wears down on the parts. Certain rates of friction can begin stripping metal faster, meaning that at too high a rate of fire the weapon can literally be destroying itself. To compensate for this, the weapon often needs to be heavier and made of stronger materials, which not only makes it harder to carry, but more expensive as well. This in turn reduces the total number than can be produced in a war, such as with the MG42 and MG34, with the Germans producing roughly a million machine guns total, and the U.S. producing over 10 million machine guns when the Browning .50 cal (3 million), Browning .30 cal (5 million), and BAR (2 million) are tallied up.

The M1 Carbine - Perhaps the world's first assault rifle

2016-12-30T12:41:00.000-08:00

The M1 Carbine - Perhaps the world's first assault rifle
Assault rifles are the modern firearm of choice by today's standards; nearly every military in the world uses them, from the U.S. with the M16, to the Russians with the Ak-47, and Europe with the SA80, Steyr Aug, FAMAS, and many more firearms. From the 5.56mm fals and HK41's to the Tavors, assault rifles are just the weapon of choice on the modern battlefield. Light, moderately accurate, having a long range, piercing basic body armor and with just enough punch to be considered applicable for most situations, they are the perfect compromise of power, maneuverability, and weight for most situations, making them the best all around practical rifle. While the origins of the weapon are complex, many point towards the Stg-44 or Ak-47 as the first true assault rifles, weapons that were not quite submachine guns, but not quite full sized rifles either. Their large magazine capacity, high rate of fire, light weight and maneuverability allowed them to fullfill the submachine gun role, but their more powerful rounds allowed them to get out to longer ranges, pierce armor and have more stopping power, and in turn allowed them to remain competitive with rifles at the time. However, the M1 carbine did the exact same thing, in larger numbers, and before both weapons.

While perhaps the first assault rifle can be traced all the way back to the Cei-Rigotti, a semiautomatic rifle chambered in the 6.5mm carcano, itself is debatable whether or not it was an assault rifle given that it's power levels were average for the time, and it was never produced in large numbers (and much of the information about the weapon is contradictory as a result given that few surviving examples exist), the M1 carbine was perhaps more accurately the first mass produced assault rifle, if going by modern definitions. While hard to define exactly given the common usage of the term "assault rifle" which over the years has come to mean many things, the most commonly accepted definition of an assault rifle is a select fire weapon, that is semiautomatic or fully automatic, with a detachable magazine, a high magazine capacity, and firing an intermediate cartridge. While the term intermediate truly is the grey zone where the rifle falls as, how do we objectively define what's "intermediate", and is it relative to the timeframe or not how much power a round had would be intermediate? Nonetheless, the Stg-44, often cited as the first "assault rifle", being common place by 1944, came too late in the war and in too small of numbers to have much notable impact. Nonetheless nearly 500,000 rifles were made, giving it fairly widespread adoption, albeit virtually at the end of the war, which came in April 1945 for Germany.

The STG-44 was approximately 8.5 to 10 pounds, had a 20-30 round magazine, was capable of fully automatic or select fire, and most importantly fired a shortened Mauser cartridge, known as the "7.92 kurz" or essentially the 7.92 Mauser short, which was a much larger rifle round literally cut down to fit in to a smaller gun, and have less recoil. Firing an 8 gram cartridge at 680 m/s, it produced around 1800-1900 joules of energy or roughly 1300 foot-pounds, giving it far less energy than the more powerful 3,500 joules of the .30-06 and 7.92mm mauser, but still enough to have the punch to take a man down quickly, unlike most pistol rounds at the time. Further, it penetrated light armor, such as a combat helmet or flak vest, and got out to ranges of 300-400 yards. While still shorter than the .30-06, mauser, or 7.7mm british rounds at the time, it was generally sufficient for combat as the long ranges could be closed quickly with few casualties since few soldiers could realistically hit out past 400 yards, and in general most combat engagements occurred less than 300 yards making it practically irrelevant. These features made it quite effective, especially on the battlefield at the time where most soldiers were using bolt action rifles, and qualified the weapon as an assault rifle.

But what about the M1 carbine? Certainly, it had a smaller, weaker bullet, at 7.15 grams traveling at 600 m/s, producing only 1,300 joules of energy, but it still met all the other qualifications, having a 300-400 yard range (but practically would have been used at shorter ranges than this, like the Stg-44), a 20-30 round magazine, was capable of semiautomatic and fully automatic fire, and was generally able to fullfill the same role as a submachine gun with a longer range. In comparison however, it was produced in larger volumes, with roughly 6.5 million being produced by the end of the war, more than the m1 garand at 6.25 million units. A more common weapon, it was designed for general purpose used, commonly used by cooks, logistics troops, truck drivers and other non-front line units that weren't designed for, but could potentially see combat. What's more was the weapon was only 5.6 pounds, and was much lighter with less recoil than the Stg-44, as well as being somewhat more reliable. And it was produced since 1941, several years before the Stg-44 would come to power. Now, perhaps the only defining feature that might not make it an assault rifle is the bullet itself which, was far weaker than the stg-44, or had approximately 35% less energy.

However, by modern standards it's equal to an M4 carbine with a shorter barrel, or an Ak-74, both of which are still considered assault rifles. It had the same ranges, function and purpose as a general purpose rifle, that could maintain steady continuous fire and that could be used both like a submachine gun in close quarters, but was competent enough at long ranges to be a rifle. While considered by many to be too weak to compete with the stopping power of most pistols at the time, it nonetheless did fullfill the role and is roughly the equivalent of them modern 5.56mm, which many perceive as having too low of stopping power as well. It was powerful enough to remain competitive against full sized rifles but had enough maneuverability and firepower to compete with submachine guns, which is essentially the goal of any assault rifle. In some ways it did it better than the stg-44, having lighter weight ammunition and the weapon itself being half the weight, albeit it being slightly weaker.

When examined objectively, while the .30 carbine was never considered as such, it more or less meets the criteria of being an assault rifle. Even the intermediate cartridge was just a shortened .30-06 with less gunpowder, literally identical to the mauser cartridge's concept design, and used for the same purpose, and with the same reasoning. The primary difference was that the M1 was produced in vastly higher quantities and used more commonly during the war, becoming as ubiquitous as the Thompson or M1 garand. In fact, it was the most produced small arm of the war, rivaling any other weapon produced in the war in terms of sheer numbers, even outdoing the 1911 or m1919 .30 caliber machine guns. It even out numbered and eventually largely replaced the submachine guns on the battlefield, being used in higher quantities than either the M3 grease gun or the M1 Thompson. While perhaps never designed as an assault rifle, by modern criteria it seems to fit the standard. So, as for the title of the first mass produced and widely used assault rifle in existance, it could very well go towards the M1 Carbine.

The G11 - The rifle that never was

2016-12-29T17:56:00.000-08:00

The G11 - The rifle that never was
The G11 is one of the most unique and interesting firearms in modern history, that was evaluated by both U.S. and German military forces as a new replacement for their older weapon systems, in direct competition with the AR-15, but that ultimately never came to fruition. While certainly a very capable firearm in many respects, it's overly ambitious features that it more or less lacked the developed technology for at the time severely hampered it's capabilities and as a result, paved the way for more conventional, proven designs to take it's place. However, what it achieved by itself is still quite tremendous even by today's standards, and is what the modern U.S. military caseless programs is based on. Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite and the creator of the Nobel peace foundation, helped work on the caseless cartridges, providing them with a very shock insensitive binder that not only held the powder together without need for a case, but raised the auto-ignition temperature by over 200 degrees Fahrenheit and made the rounds significantly less prone to "cook-offs" or accidental ignition. This made the rounds safe enough to be used without a case, without any fear or chance of the right accidentally going off when they weren't supposed and creating a safety hzard. Like C-4 or dynamite, the explosive filler is completely harmless unless detonated with a very precise type of explosive itself, making it very safe to handle. Lighting it on fire or even shooting it with a gun won't make it go off by accident, which a regular brass case would. Only by striking the primer is the round likely to detonate, which was a primary issue and safety concern for the weapon, which was then and now proven to be remedied.

While the basic design of the caseless rounds were fairly well proven at the time, other features of the guns proved to be too much. The weapon used square shape rounds which in addition to being rather difficult to manufacture, reduced reliability somewhat and increased the complexity of the feeding mechanism. Rounded bullets by comparison are completely symmetrical and equal on all sides which makes them able to be loaded in to a gun at any angle without issue. A rotating bolt or slightly shifting bullet won't cause any malfunctions, as the bullets can be loaded in, twist, and yet still function reliably. Square shaped cartridges require an exact loading process, which necessitates greater precision and thus creates greater chances of error in the loading process, reducing the reliability somewhat. The only advantage of the square cased rounds was more propellant being able to fill a magazine, making the magazine capacity greater for it's size, but this ultimately would prove to be too small of a gain to offset the disadvantages of the increased complexity and decreased reliability. It was innovative for it's time, but ultimately didn't provide enough benefits to offset the drawbacks. Another issue was it's "hyper burst" 3-round burst firing mechanism, designed to fire 3 rounds at incredibly high RPM, around 2100 RPM. While the goal of the design more or less met the criteria set about by the U.S. military, that is the ability to fire lots of little rounds when needed, and a group of small rounds equaling one big round, it ultimately would prove to perhaps be the biggest nail in the coffin for the G11.

The "hyper-burst" essentially was designed to fire 3 rounds so fast in a row that the recoil of the round wouldn't be felt until the last round had already left the barrel. This would allow for 3 rounds to theoretically land almost on top of each other, effectively tripling the power of the round. This would allow a much smaller, lighter round to be used at long range and to hit moving targets, but at close ranges or situations that necessitated stopping power or armor penetration, the 3 round burst could allow rounds to land right on top of each other, and thus increase the power output. The round's energy was around 1400 joules with a 3.33 gram round, giving it roughly comparable ballistics to the .308 in terms of energy and mass when fired in the 3-round burst. More so, this met the military's criteria at the time, which perceived more rounds firing in a battle as key to victory. The military found that in WWII the side that fired the most rounds, irregardless of the round type, was more likely to succeed. Based around this philosophy, a gun that could fire lots of little bullets was considered better than a gun that fired one big bullet. As long as the smaller bullets had the same range and penetration as the big bullet, it could be fired separately as 1 round at a time, or in bursts to increase the damage; as it's impossible to go smaller but always possible to increase in size, the idea was that lots of little bullets could be the solution to both problems. This mechanism had it's problems however, severely increasing the wear and tear on the gun, decreasing reliability and significantly increasing the price. The higher RPM tended to wear on parts and overheat the weapon faster, which was already an issue given the firing mechanism involved. It also increased the weight of the weapon substantially, to 8-9 pounds, far heavier than the comparable AR-15 at 6.5 to 7.5 pounds, and despite being bullpup was awkward and difficult to maneuver. For a weapon that fired such a tiny, weak bullet, it was relatively large and cumbersome in comparison to the power output, giving question as to why the weapon would be used instead. Finally, the weapon could only fire at 460 rpm when not in the hyper burst mode, far below the 600-700 standard RPM for most rifles, making it perform more poorly in regular semiautomatic or fully automatic fire. Most likely, this single mechanism would be the weapon's undoing, as the increased weight, price, and complexity would make it too impractical given the alternatives at the time.

Having the magazine on top is a good design for a small PDW, but for the military it limits the ability to customize the weapon. The magazine has a fixed round count that can't increase, and top fed magazines are awkward in shape and somewhat more difficult to carry. If a drum magazine, extended magazine or shorter or longer magazine is desired, the weapon cannot fullfill this. While it's magazine held 45 rounds and was very low profile, thus allowing a soldier to lay prone with the weapon, it only allowed for a single configuration. Marsksmen weapon, SAW weapons, or just other general purpose configurations were not available, as only one magazine type was afforded. While not a significant drawback and easy enough to work around, it did limit the design of the weapon somewhat.

Another drawback was it's absolutely tiny bullet. While in tandem with the military's philosophy of a lightweight, armor piercing round with the weight and size of a pistol bullet, able to shoot like a submachine gun, but with the range of 300 or so yards, it met this particular criteria perfectly but, the military would eventually decide that the lack of stopping power and effective range out to 600 yards would make the round too ineffective The 5.56mm, while notorious for it's low stopping power, still was better in most ways than the 4.6mm round which, only produced about 1400 joules, compared to the 5.56mm's 1800 joules. It also had relatively poor aerodynamics given it's small size, limiting it's maximum range to only about 450 yards or so, far less than that which was ultimately desired even if the design characteristics noted otherwise at the time. Nonetheless, the ballistics of the round are quite interesting as it mimics the 5.45mm x 39mm, the Russian equivalent of the American 5.56mm, while being approximately 2-3 times lighter weight. And this perhaps, was the greatest advantage of the G11.

The rounds, despite possessing nearly 1,400 joules and being able to pierce light armor out to 300-400 meters, were just 5.2 grams. This is compared to the Ak-74 at 10.75 grams, or 5.56mm at 12.5 grams. For roughly the same ballistics as an M4 carbine or Ak-74 (but not a full sized M16), it was around half the weight, allowing for twice as many rounds to be carried. A soldier could theoretically carry 700 rounds for every 300 of the soldier's 5.56mm, and nearly 1500 rounds for every 300 rounds of 7.62mm x 51mm NATO a soldier might be able to carry. While the range was limited, it was effective enough for most realistic combat ranges, and heavier or larger weapons could be used by a few members of the squad to provide long range capabilities when needed, instead of every soldier being equipped with a long range precision rifle. Further, the bullpup weapon was only 29.5 inches long, the length of a fully collapsed m4 carbine, but had the barrel length of a full sized M16, giving it the power of a full sized rifle inside the size of a carbine. While it was very heavy, it was overall fairly compact, and thus made it easy to maneuver in close quarters, despite it's otherwise cumbersome nature. The heavy size also reduced the recoil, giving it very little, and this in turn along with the free floating barrel gave it incredible accuracy for a standard rifle at the time. Overall, many of the basic concepts of the weapon were good, but it failed to live up to all the expectations and various aspects of the program bled in to others, reducing the overall practicality of the weapon. By just removing the 3-round burst mechanism and setting the RPM to 600 RPM permanently, it likely could have been as light weight and small as any PDW, such as the P90 or MP7, while maintaining the power of a small assault rifle. If the weapon could have been the same weight as the P90, it would have been a direct competitor for that weapon, along with the MP7, given it's already otherwise small size and light recoil. The ammunition is also about the same weight as both the 5.7mm and 4.6mm rounds, despite having nearly 3 times the energy as them. This incredible weight-to-strength ratio of the bullets was the weapon's biggest advantage, an advantage that was never realized in subsequent military rifles due to the canceling of the program. If used for other bullets however, hope for the basic core of the design could perhaps be realized in the future.

Modern day Caseless rounds - Where they are now
Caseless rounds have many advantages, the greatest being the reduced weight. Caseless rounds in general are nearly half the weight of comparative cased rounds, as brass tends to make up half the weight of the total cartridge weight of any round. A 5.56mm for instance has a 4.1 gram bullet, roughly 2 grams of powder, and a 6.5 gram brass case. When the weight of the case is eliminated, the weight of the round is only 6.1 grams, which is nearly half of the 12.5 grams it would be with the brass case otherwise. When the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO is compared, with a 9.7 gram bullet and 3.6 grams of powder, it's only 13.3 grams, or nearly half the weight of the 25.5 gram brass cased version. It also becomes the weight of the 5.56mm, allowing for the same amount of rounds to be carried by a .308 machine gunner as a 5.56mm machine gunner, effectively eliminating the primary advantage of the 5.56mm over the .308. The 6.5mm grendel goes from 16.5 to 10 grams, making it also considerably lighter in comparison.

In addition to this is somewhat increased reliability when no need for an ejected case is present (thus eliminating stove pipes or rounds stuck in the chamber), which also allows for a more sealed off mechanism less prone to being exposed to dirt or grime, given that it can have a completely closed chamber. The weapon most notably can have less recoil, due to the reduced weight of the now absent backwards recoiling brass, which also allows the weapon to be smaller. An ATK caseless 5.56mm machine gun for example is only 10 pounds compared to 17.5 pounds for an M249, and a 7.62mm machine gun is only 14 pounds compared to 27.5 pounds for the M240. All of this is with no reduction in reliability, and with significantly lighter recoil. When the weight of ammunition and the gun is considered for approximately 1,000 rounds, the average 5.56mm machine gunner can save over 25 pounds, putting their gear weight at almost identical levels to other soldiers in a squad, or decreasing the combat load from 100 pounds, to 75 pounds. If the same load-out weight is used, than the average machine gunner's gear load-out goes from 1,000 rounds, to nearly 3,000. This all with a weapon that is itself nearly 7.5 pounds lighter, handles like a rifle, and is easier to use in close quarters. The potential for this is staggering, and special forces or heavy machine gunners who traditionally carry heavier load-outs could see the true benefits of such a weapons platform. The average soldier could become a machine gunner, effectively eliminating any difference between a standard machine gun and rifle in a squad.

Switching every round over to far more accurate and powerful rounds, such as the 6.5mm grendel, could allow everyone to become a marksmen, as well. The high BC or good aerodynamics of the round would allow for long range target acquisition, as the grendel outperforms the .308 past 600 yards, but it also allows for the same light weight and low recoil that comes from the majority of intermediate cartridges. The round itself is fairly powerful, having the same sized bullet with even more power as the 7.62mm x 39mm, but even better accuracy and range than the 5.56mm. The potential here is for every soldier to be a marskmen, machine gunner and riflemen at the same time with no increase in weight or handling over a standard riflemen's load-out. The weapon's essentially perform and feel like rifles, but have the reliability and magazine capacities of machine guns. While certainly not a perfect weapon, it would allow for a sort of holy-grail among military weapons to be achieved, sought after since WWII. And thus the potential of the design, coming from the G11's caseless rounds, still lives on today. Ultimately, these are the weapons of the future, and while the G11 was discontinued, it's legacy can and likely still will live on.

The "Perfect" Combat Rifle Concept

2016-12-28T19:33:00.004-08:00

The "Perfect" Combat Rifle Concept
In WWII, the basic conundrum arrived, of, how do we create a weapon that will ultimately fulfill every role we could possibly need it to on the battlefield? While the Germans had the MG42, a heavy machine gun, the Americans eventually got the M16, a light assault rifle. But what was this concept based around? The simple comparison would be the Submachine gun, rifle, and machine gun, or the Thompson M1, M1 Garand, and Browning automatic rifle. The submachine gun had a magazine of 20-30 rounds, fired very quickly and was only 30 inches long, making it very easy to maneuver in close quarters. It's powerful hard-hitting .45 ACP was good at close ranges, but lacked the range of a rifle, effectively making the weapon completely useless past 150 yards in most circumstances, and barely serviceable past 100, and couldn't pierce armor. The M1 Garand could get out to 400-500 yards and theoretically 800 or more with the right ammunition, but only held 8 rounds, and was comparatively long and heavy. While it was able to be used in close quarters far easier than say, a bolt action rifle, it still lagged behind the Thompson. The solution to all of this could be found in the BAR, with the same rate of fire and magazine capacity as the Thompson, and light enough recoil to be used accurately in rapid fire. However, it was 16-20 pounds, used very heavy ammunition, and ultimately was too big and bulky for most soldiers to reliably and effectively use. So, the issue came up; how do we make a light, reliable, high-speed weapon that's also maneuverable and capable of being used in close quarters?

Perhaps the first example would be the m1 Carbine. Produced in higher numbers than the m1 garand, at 6.5 million compared to 6.25 million, it was reliable, light, and had a magazine capacity of up to 30 rounds, giving it the ability to essentially replicate the thompson. However, it had a much longer range, of approximately 300 yards, giving it the ability to be used at realistic combat engagement distances, which the military found to be generally under 300 yards, and usually under 100. This meant it wasn't completely useless at long ranges, but was well suited for close ranges, making it an ideal all purpose weapon. The main problem was the stopping power. Notoriously a very weak cartridge, it was reported to have less stopping power than a .45 ACP, especially at long ranges, and couldn't penetrate through light armor or heavy clothing. So the design for a more powerful, armor piercing weapon began. Also on the mind of U.S. commanders at the time was the study that found the side which fired the most rounds most often won, irregardless of round type, giving the military the idea that faster, higher rates of fire normally won the day. Now while this statistic ignored a lot of other factors such as numbers of troops, realistic rates of fire in the field and the fact the rounds being used did actually matter, it nonetheless shaped the military's perspective on their choice of the "perfect" general purpose combat rifle, that could replace all three main types of guns (the submachinegun, rifle, and machine gun).

Perhaps the first attempt at this was the M14. It was essentially a heavily modified m1 garand with a 20 round detachable box magazine, designed to remain competitive with the BAR, m1 and thompson. While a very suitable m1 Garand replacement, in rapid fire it's recoil was too high to be used practically as a machine gun, and it's weight and size made it poor for close quarters combat. In Vietnam, it was found that soldiers with the Ak-47 could out maneuver their own men and carry more ammunition, and in the close quarters combat of the jungle soldiers found the M14 overweight and very cumbersome. It got so bad that at one point, the fully automatic selectors of the guns were welded to semi auto, as they were afraid soldiers would waste ammo on full auto, as was often the case. The desire for a lighter, smaller weapon came around and had been bounced around for quite some time. While the bullpup EM-2 was perhaps the best contender at the time, using a very streamlined, aerodynamic bullet that mimicked the ballistics of the .30-06 and was generally very accurate and long range, for it's low power, the M16 was eventually picked. Based off of the AR-10, which was itself a .30-06 based weapon, it's incredibly low weight of only 7.5 pounds, combined with the built in suppressor and muzzle break, as well as the recoil reducing system known by most as the Direct impingement system, removed most of the moving parts of the mechanism and simplified the design, allowing for vastly reduced recoil. This came at the expense of a large size due to the recoil buffer tube, in effect making the weapon incapable of becoming bullpup, and somewhat reduced reliability. So, the question become, do we want a longer weapon worse at CQB, but with great power, or a weapon with slightly less power, but did amazingly well at close quarters combat? The EM-2 would have been the natural pick for soldiers at the time, as it would have fit the environment of Vietnam the best and been in direct competition of power with the Ak-47, despite having the same range as the .30-06, and better armor penetration.

Instead, the military went with the M16, which was an even smaller, weaker bullet than the EM-2, that had an even shorter range despite only being slightly lighter weight. This was despite perhaps ironically the military rejecting the EM-2 initially because the weaker bullet could never be accepted by the command officials, stuck in the view that the .30-06 was the minimum level of power that was needed on the battlefield. Even worse, this very weak, low-recoil round was put in to the AR-10, which was very finicky and needed proper gunpowder to not jam, a weapon itself designed to reduce recoil. Why put a heavy recoil reducing gun with the smallest bullet available? Soldiers could have easily handled the recoil of an M14 with a .223 in it instead, but they went with an even more recoil reducing weapon. Beyond this, the weapon was generally prone to malfunction and not very resistant to environmental hazards such as sand, mud or water, issued without cleaning equipment or instructions, and had 20 round magazines that were only reliable if loaded with 18 or less. Furthermore the higher rate of fire offered by the more powerful gunpowder caused the weapon to overheat quickly, which overheated quickly regardless of what round was being used. Irregardless the weapon was adopted and in the hands of trained infantrymen did fairly well, with soldiers in Vietnam getting 1 to 18 kill ratios fairly easily even in infantry combat. While the numbers vary according to some authors, most will claim that for every U.S. soldier causality, 3-18 of the enemy experienced casualties. The weapon's ammunition was half the weight of the .30-06, allowing a soldier to carry 600+ rounds in to combat for every round the M14 could fire. Consistent with the belief that more rounds = a higher chance of victory, the weapon stuck, and has remained in U.S. service for over 50 years.

While many obvious problems existed with the firearm, it nonetheless was able to fullfill the role for the most part. Today, the competition is between the M4 carbine and M16, the shorter, carbine length variant that is only 30 inches with the stock collapsed but is much weaker and less reliable due to the shorter gas tube and shorter barrel length, or the M16, the full sized, but cumbersome bigger brother. The honest truth is that, a resolution to the size of compactness, that is small size, low recoil, and light ammunition, can be made without compromise. A weapon with various recoil reducing facets, lighter weight ammunition, and being a bullpup can eliminate all these issues, allowing it to fullfill the role of both an assault rifle, and submachine gun. While replicating a machine gun to it's fullest extent may become impossible, it's ability to fullfill the role say, a BAR, or a light machine, is in actuality a feasible reality. Just like the M27 IAR, a weapon in the middle of a heavy machine gun and assault rifle can be found, and thus give a weapon capable of fulfilling all the roles needed in a squad. In numbers, the weapon can replicate the effect of a machine gun, if needed, and a machine gun can still be issued to some members of the squad. Because most gunners fire in short bursts and not fully automatic fire, it is almost unnecessary to have such a high rate of fire on the battlefield irregardless.

Enter the Bullpup
While the bullpup rifle is not a new concept, it has only recently become the standard across the world. Better in almost everyway compared to the traditionally laid out rifles, it is able to shorten the weapon by some 6.5 to 10 inches, allowing it to remain the size of a compact CQB weapon like the M4 carbine, while still having a full length barrels. Shorter barrels have less power, and in the AR-15 platform less reliability, which means a trade-off between accuracy, range, and power when going to a CQB weapon. This trade-off can be completely eliminated just by using a bullpup weapon, which means it can be used to replaced both the M4 carbine and M16, and is better than both individually. The EM-2 was perhaps the first well known example, made in 1948, just 3 years after WWII was over.

The Tavor however is perhaps the most popular and prolific bullpup firearm used by military's today, next to the Steyr Aug, and is a long-stroke gas piston weapon with the same reliability of the ak-47 or M14, despite being the size of the M4 carbine. It's reliable function doesn't impact it's accuracy or recoil however, being very easy to shoot, nearly as much so as the AR-15. The weapon is only 30 inches long with a 20 inch barrel, giving it the length of a fully collapsed m4 carbine, with the barrel length of a full sized rifle. Being very back heavy, it's easy to point down range and maintain, eliminating the issue that longer rifles tend to have by being more front heavy, and thus harder to hold up. Furthermore, it's superior ergonomics allow it to be very easily held with one hand, and obviously well supported with two, giving it a superior feel and comfort than the AR-15, which is known for being a very comfortable gun to hold and shoot. While the Steyr aug achieves all of these same things over the AR-15 platform, it came 30-40 years before the tavor, and thus lacks some of the modernized features and isn't as good on all fronts. Other notable and widely used bullpups is the French FAMAS, the British SA80, and the SAR-21. All of these weapons are just as short as any carbine, but with the full length barrel of a full sized rifle, and thus all the benefits that entails.

High BC Rounds - 6.5mm Grendel and other alternatives
A big issue has always been the concern of power. Finding a round that has light enough recoil to compete with the lighter, intermediate cartridges such as the .223, but is powerful enough to compete with the .308. While every round truly has some sort of compromise, shortening the gap between them is legitimately possible. While there's more to it than just having a high ballistic coefficient, a large part of the equation is a high BC round. The ballistic coefficient of a bullet is essentially it's aerodynamics, how much energy the round maintains out to longer ranges, and a higher Ballistic coefficient allows for more energy retention. Larger more powerful rounds tend to be less velocity dependent on their stopping power, in addition to maintaining higher energy levels. The 6.5mm Grendel for example, at the muzzle has approximately 2,600 joules, which is 45% more than the .223, but still 35% less than the .308. However, at 600 yards, it has more energy than the .308 at 600 yards, giving at least as much power at long ranges as the .308. At 1,000+ yards, it vastly outperforms the .308, giving it the ability to reach targets out to a long range and still incapacitate them. The round is twice as heavy as the .223 round, but still 20% less heavy than the .308. It's recoil is only approximately twice that of the .223 compared to 4 times that of the .308, which is still very manageable at close ranges, and it's only 30% heavier than the .223, compared to twice as heavy with the .308. In addition, the round is as heavy as an Ak-47, with even more power, and maintains more power out to approximately 250 yards. The incredible ballistic coefficient means that at while close range it has less power than the .308, it has the same or more at longer ranges. As in general the .223 or 7.62mm x 39mm is more than sufficient at close ranges, at least according to military requirements, it stands to reason that more power is not needed at close range, but long ranges. High BC bullets essentially allow for a lighter recoil impulse at the muzzle, but greater performance at long ranges. They also tend to be more accurate.

Reports by the military found that past 300 meters, the 5.56mm began to become rather ineffective, lacking the stopping power or accuraccy for long range target engagement, and thus many units began to switch over to the 7.62mm. While simply providing a handful of soldiers with more powerful guns allowed for longer target acquisition, it slowed down the entire squad when only a single soldier could engage the enemy at those distances. With rounds like the 6.5mm Grendel, every soldier could engage targets out to long range, and still have enough not only enough stopping power, but also the ability to penetrate through armor. The 7mm British, 6.8mm Remington SPC, and a number of other rounds fullfill the same role, with varying degrees of capabilities. For instance the 6.8mm Remington does extremely well from short barrels, where as the 7mm British mimics the ballistic trajectory of the .30-06. The 6.5mm grendel is by far the most accurate with the best long range performance, and would do well in bullpups, but the 6.8mm remington would be the best out of a carbine. While the 6.5mm Grendel has between .48 and .53 G1 BC and the 6.8mm Remington has around .35 BC or higher, the .223 has a G1 BC of .200. The best sniper rounds for the .223, such as the Mk. 262, have a BC of .35, but are much more expensive than either the 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel, and the best variants of these rounds have even better ballistics.

Recoil reduction - Muzzle breaks and recoil buffers
One of the key problems of more powerful rounds is of course, recoil. One of the primary reasons the M14 was replaced by the M16, was the recoil and difficulty in controlling the M14 in fully automatic fire. While certainly a problem, it is not entirely unmanageable. Various methods can be used to mitigate the felt recoil of most weapons or help control, thus solving this fundamentally as an issue. Muzzle breaks, depending on the type and ammunition can help reduce recoil by 30-40% at least with rifles, and various recoil buffers and dual-recoil springs, can also help reduce felt recoil. The HK USP

Weight Reduction - Caseless rounds

Better Barrels

Why the .25-45 Sharp is likely the best new "AR" Round

2016-11-27T11:05:00.004-08:00

Why the .25-45 Sharp is likely the best new "AR" Round
So, there's been quite a few new AR rounds out there or, .223 replacements. The 6.5mm Grendel, the 6.8mm Remington, the .300 black-out, the .458 SOCOM (which is actually an old round, but it's making a come-back) and numerous others designed to work inside of a gun more or less designed to fire the .223 or 5.56mm x 45mm NATO, without many modifications. The receiver of the gun, the legal part of the gun, and arguably the hardest part to make and recreate, can be used as well as the magazines with all these rounds, but the bolt, the recoil spring and the barrel often need to be replaced, which are fairly easy to replace on most firearms. Especially with the AR, which has an easily detachable barrel, it's easy modify these weapons to be able to accept and fire the rounds by changing out the bolt, the spring and the barrel. In the case of the .300 black-out and .25-45 sharps, all that needs to be replaced is, the barrel. According to some however, the .25-45 sharp is the worst new AR round, and the Mk. 262 far surpasses it and the 6.8mm Remington. I simply disagree.

What makes the .25-45 Sharps so promising is that unlike the 6.8mm Remington or 6.5mm Grendel which are objectivity more powerful and longer range rounds, is as mentioned before, that only the barrel needs to be replaced. Designing, creating and fitting in an entirely new bolt and recoil spring is apparently rather difficult for most firearms manufacturers, albeit theoretically possible. The ACR, or Remington Advanced Combat Rifle, was originally promised to be chambered in numerous rounds, from the 6.8mm to the 7.62mm x 39mm, but never was actually mass produced in any caliber other than the 5.56mm. After over 5 years since being announced, the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO and other variants of the rifle have yet to come to fruition, and seem to be little more than vapor ware. The FN SCAR, Tavor and numerous other companies have promised caliber version after caliber version, and as of yet only a single 6.5mm Grendel and a handful of 6.8mm Remington firearms even exist for sale, largely AR-15 variants. Apparently designing a new bolt, which is simple in theory, is far more complicated in practice. Likely, the size of the new rounds means the bolts have to be enlarged and a new hole has to be drilled in the bolt carrier to fit the new balanced bolt, or the bolt has to be asymmetrically placed which would put a lot of stress on the gun and possibly limit reliability. It's far more likely that company executives simply did a tally of the popularity of the cartridge, realized the profits wouldn't be worth the money spent and scrapped the project after they realized their money could be better spent for higher profits. Gun manufacturers are a finicky lot, and with every gun ban scare you get huge fluctuations in prices from ammo to guns, manufacturers changing processes even before the ban gets passed (which it might actually never), company head quarters changing and generally the tiniest tremors, like a pebble in a pond, can create gigantic shock waves through the industry. Most likely, as no other company was producing rifles chambered in the rounds, the rest of the companies dropped their projects and seeing as how everyone else dropped out, they too fell like dominoes and became too scared to be the first guinea pigs to test the new rounds in their rifles and see how well they'd sell.

There's a lot to say about marketability. As only a small percentage of guns ever become popular enough to reach the sale of thousands in the markets and "tried and true" gun designs have been around for over 100 years (the 1911, .50 caliber browning machine gun etc.), the ak-47 being around for over 70 years and the AR-15 over 60, it seems like gun manufacturers are typically afraid of anything new. That's why the initial reception of a cartridge, and it's adoption by various companies, is important for it's growth. Even if it's objectively better, even if it's more reliable or more accurate or more powerful, the simple fact that it's new and few companies are willing to take risks to their decade old platforms can kill a round or even a weapon before it even starts. Failure after failure after canceled military competition have taught the gun industry to be cautious, and to sell what sells rather than what is necessarily best. A 5,000 dollar SR-25 may be accurate, but it's hardly affordable, so to really make the big bucks you need something that can be mass produced and generally sold for under what a person is willing to pay. Past 1,500 dollars you find a lot of reservation for buying rifles, and depending on the rifle type this can be even lower, such as with Ak's (with most being under 1,000). Brand name is important as everyone and their mum's (and their mum's) are trying to sell an AR-15 derivative or a 1911, and a bad reputation, even with just a few guns, can kill a business. Reliability is one of the foremost concern of most consumers, second only to modularity and ergonomics. If the gun doesn't work reliably, if it can't be depended on, people won't want to use it. If it doesn't feel good to the hand, or it's just a bit heavy, a lot of guns will be ignored. Tiny factors can make or break the success of firearms, such as the AR-18 having the same weight and size as the AR-15, with the same recoil, but being more reliable and accurate, as well as cheaper and easier to maintain, but that for some unknown reason never achieved the popularity of the AR-15 or surpassed it. The gun industry is filled with great ideas that flopped due to poor marketing, and that become oddities of history asking ourselves "why don't we all use short stroke gas pistons?" or why didn't the AR-18 surpass the AR-15, the Galil the Ak etc. Companies are afraid to take risks, and for them to adopt a new round it can take quite a bit of investment.

It's just the reality of the situation. That's why the promotion of new, more promising designs or rounds need to be taken seriously, or at least seriously enough. While my personal favorites are the 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8mm Remington in the .223 replacement world, the .25-45 Sharp is a great contender, and will likely become the new most popular round. All that's needed for it to work is a barrel change. In the Tavor, this only takes a few minutes, for an AR-15, this only takes a few hours. For the Steyr Aug, this can only take a few seconds. Some weapons are even designed with quick detachable barrels, which makes replacing them much easier. The AR-15 for instance has it's barrel wear out after about 5,000 rounds, so it's designed to be replaced at least once during the lifetime of the firearm (usually 10,000 rounds). Barrels are then extremely easy to replace in most, but not all firearms, which makes them very, very easy for manufacturers to adopt. You drill a few holes and slots in a barrel to make it fit in the gun and, you've got a new barrel. In the case of the .300 black out and .25-45 sharp, the cartridge case is identical to shape and size to the 5.56mm; in fact in most cases, it literally uses 5.56mm or .223 cases. This means that the same magazines can be used, the same bolt, the same firing pin, the same trigger spring and basically everything else. The .300 black out and .25-45 sharp are literally just the same case of the .223 remington but "necked up" to use a larger cartridge. The brass lips where the bullet lies is literally just bent out wards to fit the new bullet in, which since brass is very soft and can stretch easily, is actually not very difficult to do. This means that everything on the guns, save for the barrel, can basically be identical as the chambering mechanisms on the bolt, the firing pin striking the primer etc. are all literally identical to the .223. The down side to using the same case as the 5.56mm is the diminished case capacity, especially with a larger round, and the requirement of using the same amount of powder. The .300 black out suffers from this especially so, only having 1800 joules with an 8 gram cartridge, which gives it a fairly low velocity of 670 m/s, which dramatically shortens the range of the round. While the bullet itself is nearly identical to the 7.62mm x 39mm in terms of size, it has 400 less joules, or 20% less energy, which dramatically impacts both the flight characteristics and power of the round. The best advantage of the .25-45 Sharp is that it utilizes newer gun powder, which far greater energies even from the exact same case, producing nearly 2,350 joules of energy.

More in depth Information

While the raw data can more or less be found here, the .25-45 sharp utilizes a slightly thicker brass case, giving it far greater strength, and uses much stronger and higher quality brass. This combined with the larger neck diameter, allows for greater power to be produced in the same cartridge size, without significantly increasing the internal pressure. The problem with superior gunpowder is that it tends to produce greater chamber pressures, which in turn puts more stress on the barrel and especially on guns not designed to withstand the pressure, can become dangerous. It's much better to have a cartridge with the same pressures as the bullet you're trying to shoot, so it doesn't endanger the user, and to do so requires simply superior gunpowder, which has more power for the same pressures. This may seem like a tall feat, to simply make gunpowder objectively better than other gunpowder, but it's not exactly a new thing. Gunpowder revolutions are quite common in the gun world. The original .45 ACP, now considered a relic of the past, was literally a .45 colt round designed to be shortened and using the more powerful cordite gunpowder of the time to allow it to feed reliably in semiautomatic weapons (hence the name "Automatic colt pistol", or ACP). At the time it was ground breaking technology, reducing the overall length of the case from 1.6 inches to 1.275 inches, and reducing the amount of powder needed for the same energy (500-600 joules) from 41 grains, to 25 grains. This made the cartridge both smaller and lighter, and produce less recoil for it's power (given the lower grain count and reduced weight of the brass which contributes partially to felt recoil), which made it more ideal for semiautomatic weapons. This may sound incredible, but just a few years later the 9mm parabellum, now the standard round for all of NATO, only uses 13 grams of gunpowder, compared to 25 grams to the .45 ACP, to produce the same amount of energy. The 9mm is around half the weight and size of the .45 ACP, with the case being even shorter at 1.169 inches. Now, some prefer the ballistics of the .45 ACP over the 9mm even though the case is smaller and more rounds can be fit in to a magazine, it's lighter weight and so on. So, the question has always come up; can we put this new and improved gun powder in the same cartridge, perhaps use some stronger brass in case it's too weak to handle the new pressures, and get the same results? The short answer is, yes! Absolutely. The .45 GAP for instance is such a round, widely used in glocks, producing the same energy or more as a standard .45 ACP, but being smaller and lighter, and using the same new and improved gun powder. But what if we kept the .45 ACP the same size? Kept the absolutely mammoth case and pumped it full of the most powerful gunpowder we could find? Well, you'd get the .45 super, which gets up to 1,000 joules worth of energy, equal to a .357 magnum, in fact exceeding the average cartridge. While only a handful of guns are designed to fire it, the HK45, HK USP, and a handful of 1911's can fire either the .45 or .45 super (albeit, ideally you would switch over the recoil spring before doing so), there are guns that can do so, meaning that yes, you can actually mix-and-match the gunpowder to whatever cartridge you want. There are very popular cartridges, such as the .45 ACP, that use such old gunpowder that new gunpowder can either shrink the size of the cartridge, or make it literally over twice as powerful. So after nearly 50 years, why not the .223?

While some have questioned the ability of the .25-45 Sharp to get approximately 30% greater power from the exact same case as the .223, this isn't exactly a new change in the firearms industry to have gunpowder improve, or some kind of secret that there's better gunpowder than what's found in many of the most popular cartridges. Every 20-30 years or so the gun industry goes through sweeping changes and the newest, best gun powder is used in new cartridges that are hailed as amazing inventions before they too are eventually replaced in the same manner. It wasn't that long ago that the .308 was the "new thing", replacing the older, and larger .30-06 cases that were nearly half an inch longer than the .308 with a much shorter and lighter round, ironically before it was replaced by the .223 which had more powerful gunpowder than the .308 and was even lighter and smaller than one might otherwise think. In fact during the life of the .223, the change in gunpowder shifted from a round producing 1300 joules initially, to one producing 1800 joules, or being nearly 35% more powerful, with the military shifting to this more powerful ammunition. Since the .223 is nearly 50 years old and the military has been reluctant to replace it's somewhat aging rifles (the springfield was replaced in 33 years by the M1 garand, the M1 garand was replaced in 23 years, the M14 in 16 years, and the M16 is still in service after nearly 50 years, or 46 years of official adoption), it was bound to have some cartridges that proved to, objectively, be more powerful for their overall size. If we use the .223's level of energy of 1,800 joules from a 20 inch barrel as our baseline, than in comparison the 6.5mm Grendel produces approximately 2,600 joules, the 6.8mm Remington 2,700, and the .24-45 sharp 2,350. An Ak-47 by comparison has about 2,200 joules, and is notoriously more powerful than the 5.56mm, having an easier time passing through common barriers such as cinder blocks and brick walls. So, the primary drawback of the .223 has always been it's rather lack luster power and small size, but the .25-45 sharp produces far greater energies than it, or even the Ak-47. The .25-45 sharp can give the Ak-47 a run for it's money in terms of energy. Even better, the .25-45 sharp is a much heavier cartridge than the .223, ranging between 5.6 and 7 grams in terms of weight (compared to the Ak-47 at 8 grams), compared to the 3.6 to 5 gram weight of the .223. Until recently, few .223 bullets existed with a BC above .3, and the best so far has a BC of approximate.y .35 G1, or the blackhills Mk. 262 77 grain, boat-tail hollow point ammunition, currently used by U.S. snipers. While certainly an excellent cartridge, the navy seals and other users found it to be a bit lack luster ,and moved to replaced their special purpose (SPR) 5.56mm marksmen rifles, largely citing it's lack of power, especially at long ranges, as their primary concerns.

There have been a lot of arguments in terms of the theoretical power of various bullets, particularly in regards to the .223 compared to the .25-45. Arguably, a larger bullet means less case capacity as being more deeply seated in to the cartridge decreases how many grains of powder can be stored in it. And in theory a smaller bullet should have less aerodynamic resistance when in flight. Yet, neither of these two things are true in reality. The question eventually comes, why would we choose to use the 6mm or 6.5mm over the 5.56mm and not just use a 2,350 joule .223 and not have to change the barrel at all? (which is, of course, theoretically possible). There are quite a few factors that influence this, which can be summarized as: the first factor being the weak nature of the .223 in general, the second being the case more deeply seated in to the cartridge doesn't impact the energy enough to make a realistic difference, the third being that better more aerodynamic cartridges exist which can be chambered in the round so it might as well be done, the fourth being that the barrel twist of the barrel would have to change anyway with a higher velocity round necessitating a switch, and the fifth simply being that a larger neck diameter reduces maximum chamber pressures even if using the same gunpowder. The first is perhaps the most obvious, which is that the .223 is tiny. The small size not only dramatically reduces the power of the cartridge, but also it's long range capabilities. While many would presume that a higher velocity round would automatically have a longer range (if it's faster, it can travel farther, right?), but the faster a bullet goes the more aerodynamic resistance it experiences. Further, bullets have a tendency to lose energy over time due to a loss in momentum and force. The heavier a bullet is, the more momentum and inertia it has, and the harder it is for it to lose energy. Nearly all sniper rounds increase the weight and reduce the velocity of the round. Be it the black hills ammunition going from 4.1 grams to 5 grams with the .223, or the Sniper 7.62mm x 51mm rounds going from 9.7 grams to 11.3 grams, nearly all sniper bullets are slightly heavier than the lighter counter parts. This gives a better range due to less energy lost in the first few hundred yards, and of course a greater momentum and greater power at terminal ranges given the less-velocity dependent cartridge. The ideal sniper cartridge also tends to have a velocity between 750 m/s and 850 m/s, meaning that extremely high velocities don't seem to be relevant; the .308, .223, even the .50 cal's best sniper rounds are between this butter zone. The fact the 6.5mm, 6.8mm, and .25-45 sharp are in this zone makes the round more promising, not less so. Imagine trying to throw a paper ball as fast as you could compared to a marble, or a baseball. It's light weight means it starts off faster,but this is actually a hindrance as the exponential loss of energy in the close range coupled with it's even lower momentum allows it to waste most of it's energy; throwing a paper ball really hard will actually make it go a shorter distance than if you throw it softer, and the same is true with a paper airplane. There's as stated before a certain butter zone for most rounds. For instance, in 100 yards a 5.56mm from a full-length barrel will go from 1,800 joules to 1,445, losing 20% of it's energy at relatively close engagement ranges. At 300 yards, it's lost approximately half of it's energy, or dropped down to 900 joules, making it lose effectiveness from the already weak cartridge. A 2009 study conducted by the U.S. Army claimed that half of the engagements in Afghanistan occurred from beyond 300 meters (330 yd). America's 5.56×45mm NATO service rifles were determined to be ineffective at these ranges, which prompted the reissue of thousands of M14s. As engagement distances in Afghanistan could reach up to 800 yards, the loss of energy with the 5.56mm was considered serious enough for hasty production and fielding of M14's to begin. At 600 yards the 5.56mm only possesses around 420 joules, or loses nearly 350% of it's energy. With a 4 gram round, it's akin to being hit by a piece of shrapnel, and has trouble penetrating armor. At 900 yards, according to the U.S. military the weapon loses it's lethality entirely. To say that the 5.56mm has an effective range of 600 yards is like saying the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO has an effective range of 1200 yards. There are few confirmed kills past 1,000 yards with the .308 (or 600 with the 5.56mm), and even fewer at 1,200. While some might question why an intermediate cartridge such as the 6.5mm Grendel or .25-45 sharp that can get out to 600 yards is really such a unique or important capability, as the 5.56mm is a 600 yard gun, the simple reality is that the 5.56mm just does not do well at 600 yards, or even past 300 yards. A 600 yard shot with the 5.56mm is akin to a unicorn sighting, something talked about and heard of, but rarely if ever actually seen. True, realistic 600+ yard engagements require substantially better rounds, and this is confirmed by nearly every experienced shooter and the military. Essentially, these rounds offer far greater long range ability, which allows the users to fullfill both a marksmen and riflemen role. Every marine a riflemen, now it could be every riflemen a marksmen.

Secondly, a more deeply seated round in the case provides two advantages, one being that it can get greater energy transfer to the round allowing it to quixotically gain back some lost energy, and a longer overall bullet. Increasing the ballistic coefficient of a bullet usually requires making it longer, as the longer it is, the less aerodynamic resistance it possesses. A very thin piece of material spread out over a longer area produces more aerodynamic resistance, such as a kite or a parachute. There's a reason gliders use very thin materials, and that's to make it capable of catching the air so it can fly. On the other hand, when you want something to ignore air, you want it to be very thick and have a small surface area facing the direction of the air or wind. A bullet is pointed and cylindrical so that way when it faces the air, it can cut through it rather than capture the air. The longer the bullet, the more mass you can fit in with a lower surface area facing the wind. Other properties to aerodynamics don't have to do with reducing drag, but stabilizing the bullet in flight. A boat tail hollowpoint with a small cavity in the nose allows for greater stability, by forming small air pockets which help to redirect the air, which in turn makes it more accurate. Typically to take advantage of this, you need a longer, skinnier bullet. The diameter of the bullet matters less than the length of the bullet. So while a really small bullet such as a .223 may seem to have better aerodynamics in theory, in practice the larger a bullet gets, generally the more aerodynamic it becomes. You only need to look at the .338 lapua. .300 win mag, .50 caliber rifle rounds or even any sniper round used by the military to realize that the idea that a smaller bullet always means better aerodynamics is more than a bit farcical. Some bullets even use plastic tips or plastic pieces to increase the aerodynamic properties of the bullet without removing the shape of the bullet that might result in better lethality or barrier penetration (such as a hollow point). The average military 5.56mm, or the M855, has a G1 BC of approximately .2. The Mk. 262 has a G1 BC of approximately .36 BC. The average .25-45 Sharp has a BC of .3, but it can go up to .425 with the right 6mm rounds. The 6.5mm Grendel has a BC of .48 to .53, where as .308 sniper rounds typically have a BC of around the same. A .50 caliber sniper round has a BC of 1.050. Literally over 1 BC, or ballistic coefficient. So, the larger the round is, usually the better long range ballistics it will have, even though quixotically we would assume the exact opposite. It takes considerably more expensive to make a smaller round more aerodynamic, due to it's lower sectional density. The average 6.8mm Remington for instance has a BC of approximately .35, as do most of the .24-45 sharp rounds. While these rounds are around 35 cents to 50 cents, the Mk. 262 ammo is typically up to a dollar, but they can be found for around the same price at the upper levels. They're generally cheaper and easier to mass produce, as well as more accurate on average, meaning that it's a superior cartridge not with match grade ammunition compared to each other, but average rounds. These rounds all outperform match grade .223 ammunition, and blow regular, military surplus ammunition out of the water. But ignoring the price, let's see how they compare at their extremes.

The Mk. 262 is a fine round, but due to the inherent power and size of the .25-45 sharp, simply cannot reach it's levels. The .25-45 sharp completely blows away the the standard M855 ball, as well. For the sake of brevity I'll compare the energy levels of two variants of the .25-45 sharp to two variants of .223 ammunition, at 100, 300, and 600 yards respectively. The .223 gets 1800 joules at the muzzle from a full length barrel, compared to 2350 for the .25-45 sharp. The M855 and Mk. 262 have 1445 and 1502 joules at 100 yards, 912 and 1000 joules at 300 yards, and 410 and 525 joules at 600 yards, respectively. Energy obviously isn't the only factor to consider, as a heavier round tends to have more stopping power, especially at longer ranges. Even so, both .25-45 sharp rounds have approximately 2,350 joules at the muzzle, with the 87 grain -5.6 gram round having a BC of .3 and the 100 grain-6.5 gram round having a BC of .425. At 100 yards the rounds have an energy of 1938 and 1884 joules, 1285 and 1175 joules at 300 yards, and 650 and 533 joules at 600 yards. As you can see, at their respective ranges the .25-45 sharp have way more energy than the 5.56mm; the weapon has more energy than the 5.56mm at 100 yards than the 5.56mm does at the muzzle, and being much heavier it hits with greater force and has more ideal barrier penetration. Even the lightest variant is heavier than the Mk. 262 ammunition, and has around the same ballistic coefficient. The rounds pierce armor slightly better and generally are more powerful. These rounds tend to only have 10% greater recoil, and are only a few grams heavier, dependent on the weight of the bullet, making less than 15% heavier, with the same magazine capacity from the same magazines. In comparison the 6.5mm Grendel has roughly double the recoil and is about 30% heavier, but has 2,600 joules at the muzzle, 2253 at 100 yards, 1700 at 300 yards, and 1080 at 600 yard. This gives it the energy and mass of a .357 magnum at 600 yards, with better penetration, and nearly the same energy as the .223 or .300 black-out at 300 yards as they do at the muzzle. It's so aerodynamic in fact that it surpasses the .308 at these ranges despite a nearly 1,000 joule difference in starting energy.

Of course, to change any 5.56mm firearm to the .25-45 sharp all you need to do is swap out the barrel. No magazine changes, no springs, certainly not a bolt, nothing but the barrel, unlike with the grendel. While the 6.5mm Grendel has a longer range and more power and the 6.8mm remington does better from a shorter barrel, neither round can be this easily converted to. It gives the power of an Ak-47 in any 5.56mm gun, but a longer range, more aerodynamic bullet, with characteristics more suited for a riflemen. It not only has more punch but does so at a longer range, making it good for long range target shooting. While it is far from a perfect round, it's ability to fit in any 5.56mm weapon means that it can be very easily converted to fire it. Unlike the .300 black-out which is more of a novelty round that is less powerful than an Ak without the accuracy and range of the 5.56mm, the .25-45 sharp exceeds both the .223 and 7.62mm x 39mm, all without even changing the case and with very little change in recoil and weight. For this and other reasons, it is my opinion that it should become the new, best "AR" conversion round, being easy to convert and substantially more powerful.

Intermediate Cartridge Comparison

2016-11-20T09:35:00.000-08:00

Intermediate Cartridge Comparison

While the 5.56mm has served admirably in the intermediate cartridge range, it is far from the perfect round. There are plenty of rounds with superior qualities to them, including accuracy, power, and even to some extent reliability, being easier to load in to most firearms. When discussing what the the ideal cartridge to

Intermediate Cartridge Data

2016-10-24T10:58:00.004-07:00

Intermediate Cartridge Data
Although the images are rather crude, they hopefully illustrate some illuminating features about each of the cartridges.

Accuracy of 5.56mm [1][2], Accuracy of 5.56mm Mk. 262 [1], Accuracy of 6.8mm Remington [1], Accuracy of 6.5mm Grendel [1][2], Accuracy of 7.62mm x 39mm [1][2], accuracy of .300 Black-out, Accuracy of 5.45mm [1], Accuracy of 7.62mm x 51mm NATO [2]

*Tests with the 6.5mm Grendel showed sub 1-MOA with nearly every cartridge, and an average of about .5. The lowest was .3 MOA, out of a 1500 dollar AR-15.

**The limits listed are at about the average or maximum for poor accuracy. Conservative to estimates, some are more or less close to what their figures would be in real life, out of ordinary firearms. While the Ak-47 can easily achieve 3 MOA for instance, many weapons are nearly 50 years old with plenty of wear and tear, which puts their accuracy closer to 4-6 MOA. These are largely for new weapons with standard ammunition. Weapon's with worn barrels, as the Ak's tend to be, will naturally have lower accuracy. The ak-47 is also roughly 100 dollars worldwide, despite the M16 being at least 1,000. Thus the difference in value varies; a comparative Ak-47 to a comparative M16 is thus where the accuracy lies. Weapons are meant to be equals to some degree.

5.56mm BC (G7 .151) - [1][2]
5.56mm Mk. 262 BC (G7 .181) - [1][2]
7.62mm x 39mm (G1 .266) - [1][2]
5.45mm x 39mm 7N10* (G1 .351) - [1][2]
7.62mm x 51mm NATO (G7 .200) - [1][2]
7.62mm x 51mm 175 Gr - [Hornady][2]
.300 Black-out - [1][2]
6.5mm Grendel - [Hornady][2]
6.8mm Remington - [Hornady][2]

Although not exactly perfect, I used this calculator to find large chunks of this information or, fill in the blanks. Because it matched up closely with military records on the rounds and some additional data I found, I found it's a pretty good rough guide line for determining what information I did lack, such as between 600 and 1200 yards for the 6.5mm Grendel. While specifics vary with the cartridge in mind, this is the rough capabilities of the military or practical cartridge that would be used. The figures for each round are energy, velocity and bullet drop, respectively. Bullet drop was sighted in at 100 yards.

Sources: Hornady BC chart and rough Guide, 5.56mm x 45mm NATO Chart (U.S. Army Ballistic Labratory), 7.62mm x 51mm NATO and other Charts, Stuff

The lethal range of each cartridge varies considerably, irregardless of energy. Mass and inertia has the single biggest impact on what gives a weapon it's range. Not only does it generally mean higher energy due to less energy losses over range due to higher momentum, but it also means that the cartridge is less velocity dependent, and thus can do more damage. While a cartridge that is too heavy has a shorter range, in general sniper rounds are heavier, such as the Mk. 262 or 175 grain 7.62mm, are 5 gram and 11.3 grams respectively, compared to 4 grams and 9.7 grams for the standard military rounds which are 25% and 16.5% heavier. According to the U.S. military, the maximum lethal range of the 5.56mm is 900 yards, compared to 1500 for the 7.62mm x 39mm. Thus, energy, bullet mass, and other factors cannot, by themselves, provide all the details needed. But it can provide a relatively rough guide; with the same sized bullet, the 6.5mm Grendel for instance has more energy than the 7.62mm at the same ranges, thus suggesting that it's lethality must be just as high. You can see that the .308 has double or tripple, and thus is that much more powerful and so on. From here we can find a very rough idea of how good a cartridge is. While working out smaller details is more difficult, obvious differences, such as double or triple the energy, gives us clear insight in to which is the superior cartridge (at least in terms of stopping power or lethality).

1,000 joules is roughly equal to a .357 magnum, which is known for stopping power. While a very rough guide, the maximum 1,000 (or so) joule range for each cartridge is 5.56mm (250 yards), 5.56mm Mk. 262 (300 yards), 6.8mm Remington (450 yards), 6.5mm Grendel (650 yards), .300 Black-out (250 yards), 7.62mm x 39mm (250 yards), 5.45mm x 39mm (175 yards), 7.62mm x 51mm NATO M80 (650 yards), 7.62mm x 51mm NATO 175 grain (800 yards). As you can see, this fairly roughly correlates to the cartridges effective range. While the maximum range is much further than this, it is a decent guide line for determining stopping power. In some cases, the round will closely mimic the ballistics of a .357 in terms of velocity and weight at these ranges, being nearly the same weight as the same velocity, albeit with a smaller bullet better suited for penetration. At 500 joules, we would be at pistol caliber levels, or 9mm, .45, .40 S&W etc. 5.56mm (550 yards), 5.56mm Mk. 262 (675 yards), 6.8mm Remington (800 yards), 6.5mm Grendel (1200 yards), .300 Black-out (600 yards), 7.62mm x 39mm (525 yards), 5.45mm x 39mm (550 yards), 7.62mm x 51mm NATO M80 (1100 yards), 7.62mm x 51mm NATO 175 grain (1500 yards). As you can see, this also closely correlates to the maximum effective range.

Conclusions
Although based on more than this data and purely speculative, it is my opinion that the 6.5mm grendel is likely the best intermediate cartridge for use in the military. Like the .300 black-out, .25-45 sharp, or 6.8mm Remington, it can easily replace the 5.56mm without significant modification to the base rifle (a barrel, bolt and spring change), and would be easy to apply in mass production. The weight of each cartridge is not much higher than either the 5.56mm, .300 black-out or other rounds, and is only about 30% greater than the 5.56mm. It is comparatively light and short compared to the .308 or 7.62mm x 51mm NATO, and yet at 600 yards and beyond it actually performs it in terms of energy and armor penetration. This makes it comparable to the .308 in long term ballistics, but makes the recoil significantly less, due to the lower muzzle velocity. It is still 45% more energetic than the 5.56mm, and has roughly the same energy at 300 yards than the 5.56mm has at the muzzle. It's incredibly high ballistic coefficient and aerodynamic efficiency, combined with it's raw power, gives it superior ballistics to the 5.56mm, without sacrificing the small package of the weapon, significantly increasing the weight of the ammunition, or dramatically impacting the felt recoil of the user. While it is heavier and possess slightly greater recoil, it still is likely within range that of what an ordinary person can handle. Furthermore, it's accuracy is sub 1-MOA even with incredibly cheap ammunition, giving it perhaps the best accuracy of any mass produced, non-match grade bullet on the market, despite being usable in a 5.56mm type weapon.

If used in the Tavor, M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416 or other similar weapon, it is sure to dramatically improve performance, without sacrificing the advantages of intermediate cartridges, such as light weight and low recoil. It's incredibly long range and accuracy for it's power allows it to compete with larger rounds, such as the 7.62mm x 51mm NATO, without increasing the recoil. Because the power of the round is more than sufficient at taking down most human-like targets at close range, and it's power is equal to or greater than more powerful cartridges at longer range, it generally would be more than sufficient to compete with both the 5.56mm and .308 in combat without sacrificing the advantages of etheir. While other cartridges can do the same, such as the 6.8mm remington, the 6.5mm grendel due to it's incredible range and accuracy, is likely the best option.

Aluminum Oxynitride - Transparent Armor

2016-10-24T10:17:00.001-07:00

Aluminum Oxynitride - Transparent Armor
Aluminum Oxynitride, dubbed by some to be "transparent aluminum", is essentially a high strength ceramic polycarbonate composite, using laminated layers of a high strength alumina, sapphire-like ceramics and traditionally bullet proof plastics. AlON is optically transparent (≥80%) in the near-ultraviolet, visible and midwave-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is 4 times harder than fused silica glass, 85% as hard as sapphire, and nearly 15% harder than magnesium aluminate spinel. The high hardness, coupled with the high strength, particularly contributes to it's ballistic resistance, of which just 1.6 inches can stop a .50 caliber BMG, compared to 3.7 inches for traditional glass laminate bullet proof glass. The material is one of the strongest transparent armors in existence, and would be useful for soldier's visors, armored vehicles, and even aircraft.

Of particular interest would be used by infantry, who currently lack face masks capable of stopping standard fragmentation or rifle rounds. [1] 6mm or approximately a .25 inch of material was shown, in tests, to stop .30 caliber projectiles traveling at 850 m/s, and partially stop projectiles at 1,100 m/s. For a pierce of material 10cm x 10cm wide and a quarter inch thick, and with a density of 3.85 grams per cubic centimeter, it would weight approximately 231 grams or, half a pound. In theory, armor placed closely to the users face would allow for greater visibility with less material, allowing for improved peripheral vision without the increase of cost and potentially weight associated with using so much material. While the exact amount of material that needs to be covered to maintain suitable protection and peripheral vision varies, it's easily reasonable that this material could be used to do it. Any transparent parts of the armor, from solar panels to touch screens, could be potentially coated in this material, as well.

If used as a visor to protect soldiers, it would be one of the first steps to providing soldiers with full head protection, especially against commonly faced rifle threats, in addition to fragmentation. It would also be of particular use on EOD suits, where it could afford to be much heavier and thicker.

Idea for body Armor - M5 Fiber and liquid Body Armor

2016-10-24T08:07:00.004-07:00

Idea for body Armor - M5 Fiber and liquid Body Armor
Although I have a lot of ideas for body armor and there are a lot of new emerging materials that could certainly replace those currently in existence, a thought I'd have for quite some time is mixing M5 fiber, an aramid fiber similar to kevlar, with the liquid body armor concept, a non-newtonian fluid designed to enhance the performance of the material against projectiles and bladed weaponry (such as knives). The basic problem with the liquid body armor program has largely been temperature, that is kevlar degrades rapidly at higher temperatures and doesn't last very long in the field after being heated to high temperatures, and becomes weaker. While there are currently measures being taken to reduce the heat of the liquid-body armor oven-treatment, an alternative would be to use a material that is more heat resistant, such as M5 fiber, and more chemically stable, that could not only withstand the heat of the oven, but also be a more heat resistant fiber in general. Not only is M5 more thermally stable than kevlar, but it is also twice as strong, more heat resistant than nomex, and resistant to UV and other chemicals kevlar is not, giving it a longer field-life. If combined together, M5 fiber could, in theory, be at least 7 times stronger than kevlar, and due to the lack of degradation in the oven, could be even stronger than that. M5 fiber is also more flexible and resistant to repeated impacts, meaning that it could survive against multiple hits, compared to kevlar fibers which are very brittle.

M5 Fiber is a fairly incredible material, being very similar to Kevlar in that it makes for a strong, bullet resistant material when woven in to a fabric, like those used in bullet proof vests. [1][2] The material is about as strong as kevlar, but is half the thickness and weight, meaning that twice as much material can be used in a similarly sized piece of armor. Furthermore, the material is much more flexible, and will yield when stretched, meaning that it won't tear or fracture, unlike kevlar fibers which are very brittle, similar to glass. With repeated impacts kevlar wears out quickly, generally unable to take more than 1-2 bullets in the same spot, but m5 fiber can be struck repeatedly. Flexible armor has it's own advantage, as armor that is more flexible can be worn without as much difficult and be much more comfortable. M5 fiber is more heat resistant than nomex, or the material that fire fighters use in their suits, and is very chemically stable, capable of resisting many chemicals that typically degrade kevlar, such as water, and UV radiation, that comes from sunlight. This makes the material much more durable, and thus has better properties for armor when the material could be exposed to fire or heat, such as in the military. For resisting the force of explosives, the flexibility compared with the fire resistance could prove extremely useful, and the longer life means that even if the armor is more expensive, it wouldn't need to be replaced as often. Instead of being replaced every 5 years, it would be every 10 or 20 years, making the price significantly lower in the long run for active duty military or police.

The liquid body armor concept is essentially the idea of combining a sheer-thickening fluid, in this case silica suspended in polyethylene glycol, with kevlar. [1][2][3] A shear-thickening fluid (STF), is a material behaves like a solid when it encounters mechanical stress or shear. In other words, it moves like a liquid until an object strikes or agitates it forcefully. Then, it hardens in a few milliseconds. This allows the material to be very flexible and mobile, but harden under stress (such as when being strong by a bullet), allowing the material to be comfortable and contour to the shape of the human body until it is struck by a bullet. In laboratory tests, the STF-treated Kevlar was found to be as flexible as plain, or neat, Kevlar, yet Four layers of STF-treated Kevlar could dissipate the same amount of energy as 14 layers of neat Kevlar, or were 3.5 times stronger. In addition, STF-treated fibers didn't stretch as far on impact as ordinary fibers, meaning that bullets didn't penetrate as deeply into the armor or a person's tissue underneath. This means that not only is the armor stronger, but was also more resistant to repeated impacts, and less likely to cause injury from kinetic energy to the user. Penetration isn't the only way an individual can be injured; even if a bullet proof vest stopped a bullet, the person could suffer a severe enough internal injury, such as internal bleeding or bruising, from a bullet for it to be lethal or cause severe harm. Not only was the armor better at stopping bullets from penetrating, but it also absorbed the energy better. In addition, the material responded more strongly to high velocity projectiles. Because higher velocity projectiles are traditionally better at piercing armor, this means that the armor would be better at resisting specialized armor piercing rounds, as well.

The armor is approximately 3.5 times stronger, and better at stopping projectiles. To make liquid body armor using shear-thickening fluid, researchers first dilute the fluid in ethanol. They saturate the Kevlar with the diluted fluid and place it in an oven to evaporate the ethanol. The STF then permeates the Kevlar, and the Kevlar strands hold the particle-filled fluid in place. Unfortunately, the heating process has a tendency to damage the kevlar and degrade it, and while it made it stronger, the kevlar tends to wear out so quickly that practical use in the field simply hasn't generally been a feasible reality.

Due to the similar mechanical properties of M5 fiber to kevlar, in theory it should be very easily usable in the same process. M5 fiber is not only twice as strong, but also more heat resistant, meaning that it should be able to, in theory, survive the process with far less, if any degradation. This means that the material could be 3.5 x 2 times stronger than current kevlar or, 7 times stronger. And due to less degradation and other mechanical properties (such as being more flexible and stretching less on impact), could in fact be even stronger. The synergistic effects of greater repeated impact ability of M5 fiber combined with the liquid body armor could mean that the armor could stop dozens of rounds, rather than just a handful like kevlar. Without significant changes to the weight of the material, it should also be about the same weight as ordinary kevlar. While current bullet proof vests used the military are only level III-A, that is are capable of stopping a 9mm or .357 magnum, being over 7 time stronger, the armor may finally be able to stop rounds such as the 7.62mm x 39mm or 5.56mm, essentially the most commonly used rounds in the world, and faced by troops such as the Americans or United Nation's when fighting terrorists or brutal dictators. In fact, the light weight of the armor may allow the soldiers to wear the armor over the entire bodies. To be equal to an EOD suit in strength, they would only need about 10 pounds, compared to the 70+ pounds of materials found in EOD suits. 20 pounds or so for an entire suit of body armor is more than practical (around 1 pound per square foot, roughly equal in thickness to a standard level III-a kevlar vest), and in theory it should be able to stop the energy of rifle rounds.

Additional Armor
While this would make good body armor by itself, no single material will likely be enough to make effective armor. Being 7 times stronger than kevlar, as well as more heat and chemically resistant, on top of being more flexible and resistant to repeated impacts, is incredibly impressive, but likely not the only factor to consider. Other mechanical properties, such as hardness or rigidity, are important when making armor. Helmets made of kevlar for instance are generally hardened, using epoxy resin, making them physically much tougher and more energy absorbent for when worn on the head. Any kind of indentation could potentially indent in to the skull, meaning that the armor needs to be raised above the head, and the head further protected from padding to prevent the helmet from pushing in to the skull itself, and becoming as deadly as the bullet. Certain design considerations have to be understood, or else the armor will only be so much more capable. It's simple not enough for the armor to be stronger, it also needs to be designed to fit the human body and resist certain types of bullets specifically.

One design concept of particular importance would be the use of composites, that is the combination of multiple materials. When placing harder armor on the outside of the softer armor, the harder armor has a tendency to break up and flatten out incoming projectiles, making them less likely to penetrate the softer armor below. While kevlar for instance is incredibly strong, it also can be cut by a knife. Certain projectiles, such as hardened steel tipped 5.56mm rounds, can much more easily penetrate through armor, not due to increased energy or velocity, but just due to the materials they're made out of. Depleted uranium and tungsten is used in the 120mm M1 abrams cannon for instance, due to their superior penetration capabilities to steel. Furthermore, a higher velocity in and of itself generally aids in the material being better at penetrating through light armor, such as kevlar, meaning that high velocity rifle rounds at the same energy can more easily penetrate through the armor. Despite possessing nearly the same amount of energy, the .44 magnum is stopped by standard military vests, even though the standard 5.56mm is not. EOD suits in an effort to combat this effect often use hardened plastics on the outside of the armor in order to catch and break up fragmentation before entering the softer armor below, making the softer armor more effective. Although M5 fiber and liquid body armor both are more resistant to higher velocity, harder projectiles, it can't hurt to add a harder material on the outside to help do the same thing.

While ceramics and other materials can work, the best candidate is likely to be Dyneema. Already very hard and strong, it's currently being used in body armor, such as the ECH or AS-600, to stop rifle projectiles as of now. The AS-600, weighing just 3.1 pounds, is capable of stopping a .308 cartridge, which greater velocity and energy than standard pistol rounds, as well as a higher PSI figure on impact. The ECH, while technically classified, is rumored to be able to stop .30 caliber rounds, as well. The material by itself is very strong, 1.6 times stronger than kevlar, but is also much harder, giving it better penetration resistance to materials such as kevlar. If Dyneema or hardened ceramics, or even a combination of the two, are broken up in to small scales and put on top of the softer armor, the ability to stop projectiles may be even better. Not only is it possible to have soft armor that is 7 times stronger than kevlar, but if made in to the right composite, it could also be much more bullet resistant than it's strength would otherwise suggest.

While exact figures are hard to quantify, the AS-600 covers about 1 to 1.3 square feet of space, and uses about 2.2 pounds of dyneema (once ignoring the inner padding material and the chin straps). To cover 20 square foot or, slightly more than the average human body's surface area, would require approximately 33 pounds of material, and if combined with 10 pounds of M5 fiber would only weight about 43 pounds, more than practical for the average soldier. Obviously, the weight of the dyneema could be reduced somewhat as we don't need to add what's necessary to stop a .308 on top of what's necessary to stop a .308, but even so the weight is still within the limits of what an average soldier could carry on top of the rest of his combat gear. The armor would generally be more energy resistant, flexible and fire proof, making the soldiers that much more protected, as well. It seems like, this would be a good design for modern body armor. A practical estimate would be about 35 pounds for body armor that could be roughly on par with an EOD suit and stop 7.62mm x 54mmR rounds, the largest rounds fired by regular infantry on the common battlefield, which would be extremely useful in Iraq and Afghanistan, where snipers and IED's have long been the biggest killers of our soldiers and even civilians. A suit scaled up to fit an EOD suit could be even stronger.

On top of this would be further energy reduction. Newer gels, such as D30, help to absorb energy by dissipating it over the entire area of the gel, and by being able to compress or squish, allowing the energy to be dissipated over space and time. [1][2][3] While lacking mechanical properties such as hardness or toughness that would stop a bullet by itself, their superior energy absorbing abilities allows the energy to be dissipated over the armor, reducing the chance of injury. As stated before, internal injuries can result via the transfer of shock and force to the human body even without penetration, and trauma to the head can be especially dramatic, as brain damage is permanent and the head is much more sensitive to these sorts of damage. The better absorption of energy beneath the armor that is transferred to the human body could further reduce the impact of energy, even if it contributed very little to the actual stopping of a bullet, itself. The gel currently adds very little weight to helmets it's used in, and thus can serve as an inner-lining to armor, to reduce the chance of certain kinds of injuries. Given the prevalence of TBI's, or traumatic brain injuries among soldiers, even though the bullets and fragments were stopped by the helmet, this type of armor is perhaps just as important as those which are strong enough to resist penetration themselves.

Interesting Tank Design

2013-02-25T22:46:00.001-08:00

Interesting Tank Design

Hybrid Vehicles and Stuff

2012-08-31T20:02:00.004-07:00

Hybrid Vehicles and Stuff

Mechanized Warfare (Hybrids n Stuff)

MAC Gun

2012-08-31T20:02:00.002-07:00

MAC Gun

Plasma Rifle

2012-08-30T22:59:00.001-07:00

Plasma Rifle

A plasma rifle could be interesting for a lot of reasons; plasma can be extremely powerful, possessing a lot of energy, with the capacity to melt things and even potentially explode. Since plasma is relatively lightweight, a projectile of plasma could carry a lot of energy to the target but lightweight. Thus the ammunition for the weapon could be in abundance, and yet be easy to carry around.

However, how would it be possible to make such a weapon?

General Idea

A railgun should theoretically be capable of accelerating plasma to be used as a projectile. Plasma is magnetic; past a certain temperature, most forms of matter become highly magnetic as a result of ionzation, or a positive or negative number of protons or electrons, and thus respond to a magnetic field. They can be shaped, move around, and theoretically accelerated.Since plasma can be created from low pressures, heat, and potentially other forms, it can be relatively easy to create the plasma.

Plasma, in terms of energy, is relatively light weight; a gram of plasma with

Body Armor

2012-08-30T22:58:00.001-07:00

Body Armor

An issue commonly presented for body armor is money. Higher grade or lighter weight materials would be expensive, or potentially too expensive; while this is true, in that they are expensive, the relative price to the military would likely be relatively low. There are approximately U.S. 200,000 troops deployed worldwide; if body armor was purchased for them, that was 50,000 dollars per unit, it would only be 10 billion dollars. If replaced every 5 years, that would be 2 billion dollars per year, out of a 700 billion dollars budget. Not even 1% of the total military's budget 400,000 units could be bought for good measure, for troops in training, reserve, or as back ups.

If these types of armor could legitimately stop rifle rounds, protect largely from shrapnel and even I.E.D.'s (in many situations), they would be well worth the cost. Compared to the 200,000 vests bought in X, that were approximately 1585 dollars per unit, for 300 million dollars total, it could be a significant step up.

Weight

U.S. Standard Firearm

2012-08-30T22:57:00.001-07:00

U.S. Standard Firearm

The standard U.S. firearm and it's derivatives, the M16 and M4 carbine, while manageable firearms, leave a lot to be desired. From it's poor stopping generally, to general unreliability, to maintenance issues, and questionable indoctrination, the firearm suffers from a number of issues. Despite it's improvements over the years, there's still a lot to be desired from the firearm of one of the most powerful military's in the world, especially in comparison to many modern firearms present in country's today. Notable improvements include an enlarged receiver (2.5 to 3.5 pounds, which allows for more gas diffusion), a chrome lined barrel and breech, composite construction over 10 times stronger than it's 1960's variant, a more powerful round (from 3.5 to 4.1 grams), the adoption of better suited parts to the dirtier powder it wasn't originally intended to use, picatinny rail accessory standardization, a more reliable 30 round magazine instead of an unreliable 20 round magazine, along with general information regarding the capacity to clean the previously claimed "self cleaning weapon", have been incredibly beneficial to the firearm. However, it still is relatively lacking compared to modern firearms.

In a military dust test, in July 2007, the U.S. Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, XCR, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon fired 6,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment". The purpose of the shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages. This is roughly 1 jam every 472, 265, 257, and 68 rounds, respectively. Although perhaps not as reliable as a machine gun or Ak-47, it's easy to see how modern equivalent weapon are significantly more reliable over the direct impingement system of the M16.

The weapon's firepower is exceedingly low, sometimes being incapable of immediately stopping insurgents who pose serious threats to American soldiers or innocent civilians. Although details do exist on events that involved many rounds being fired into drugged assailants or at car body's with varying success of stopping the individuals, the firepower, or lack there of is easily demonstrated by it's difficulty with standard urban obstacles. According to the U.S. military, the round can be stopped by ""One thickness of sandbags, a 2-inch concrete wall (unreinforced), a 55-gallon drum filled with water or sand, a small ammunition can filled with sand, a cinder block filled with sand (block would probably shatter), a plate glass windowpane at a 45-degree angle (glass fragments would be thrown behind the glass), a brick veneer, or a car body (rounds fired from M16A1/M16A2 rifles would likely penetrate, but not normally exit)." Glass, and a small ammunition box filled with sand. [1][2]

Do these short comings necessitate replacement? Given that the M4 and M16 have served in many engagements effectively, it is largely uncertain. In any case, U.S. soldiers would likely be better off with a more reliable, powerful, and capable firearm, as it could effect nearly all members of the military, from medics, to airmen, to tank crews, to your average foot soldier, when a personal defense weapon is needed.

Budget Constraints

Largely, budget constraints are inconsequential. Despite congress putting the 1.8 billion dollar Individual carbine competition on hold for budget auditing, an expenditure worth approximately two stealth planes but that could field over 500,000 weapons, budget concerns are relatively minor. This is in large part due to the relatively low cost of firearms compared to the otherwise enormous budget of the military.

The standard M16 rifle costs approximately 1000 dollars, with barrel replacements around 500 dollars. Approximately X amount have been purchased, and it has been in service with the country for over 43 years. Comparatively, The SR-25, an incredibly high grade sniper rifle, is worth approximately 4000-5000 dollars. If the military were to purchase 1 million firearms at 10,000 dollars each, it would cost approximately 10 billion dollars. Over 10 years, this would be approximately 1 billion dollars per year, out of a 700 billion dollar budget. Considering the impact it could have, the cost would largely be insignificant compared to the rest of the military's expenditures.

As well, a more expensive firearm could be more durable. The M16 is rated to last approximately 10,000 rounds, while the barrel is capable of lasting approximately 5,000. Combined, this makes a 10,000 round package approximately 1500 dollars. Comparatively, the XM8 and HK416 are guaranteed to function reliably for approximately 20,000 rounds, including their barrel. In terms of comparatively costs, the HK416 and XM8 could be 2000 dollars per rifle, and still be cheaper than the M16, which would cost 3000 dollars every 20,000 rounds. Thus a higher quality rifle, which lasts considerably longer, could in fact save money, and in the mean time increase reliability and firepower. Since logistics dictate etc. [1]

Thus the price of the rifle, even far outside of reasonable costs, is still affordable to the military.

General Considerations

Obviously, a firearm must have