Anyone know what the ballistics on it are? Bullet weight, velocity, barrel length? Just curious. With the limited case capacity I don't think it will have the legs of the 6.8 but for cqb with the right bullet it might be good in shorter barrels with fast powders.
It cannot touch the 6.8 in ballistics. The SPC case is one of the most efficient cases there is. All things like this do is cause confusion and add distractions to the issue. The whole point of the SPC was to get enough of a gain to make it worth it. You also have the issue of the OAL with the 5.56 case. This has all be hashed out here and over on ARFCOM.
The very first thing the 5th group testers did was try the various bullets on the 5.56 case and it did not meet there goals. End of story. If it had you can damn well bet you they would have jumped at it as it woudl have been a much easier sell. You also forget that its the case design that allows it to do so well in SBRs and not loss very much velocity. Case in point Paulos 14" gets what most get out of their 16"s My 18" is within 10-20 fps of many loads from 20"s. It is a case that is trying to build it self around one bullet. It doesn't take to much to see that the 5.56 pushes a 77 gr bullet at 2600 fps and the 6.8 pushed an 85 gr bullet @ 3200 fps. While increasing caliber does increase efficiency its not even in the same ballpark. We are up in ,.243/6mm Rem areas with the 6.8 SPC with 90r and lighter bullets.
I like the idea for logistics purposes. You can use the same mags and speed loaders and stripper clips and the such. Not to mention the same bolt. But yes I do see were as the amount of power (i.e. less powder capacity) would be a issue.
And you also have nothing much better then what a 77gr in a 5.56 can do. You also loose the short barrel efficiency as that is in th case design not the bullet and that is what was the main point of the entire program. TO get a more effective round in a SBR config becasue the the 5.56 lost way too much vel going to shorter barrels. All these kind of things do is dirty the water and distract from the goal of getting a nw3round into th hands of the mil.
The only thing being saved by a choice like this from the military stand point is mags and bolts and the bolt is a normal wear item any ways. every 4Krounds..For that matter so is th mags You still have new ammo. New barrels. As for producing new cases that is contractors problem and they have to produce a case anyways its a only a tooling change to switch over to a new case.they have to produce a case anyways. All the parts that are being swapped out are all wear parts that get replaced regularly in a military environment anyways so the savings is not as big as it seems. As phase in with a stop of new shipment and depleting of existing stores would limit much of the cost. You still have to place the barrel which is where 90% of the cost is as you have to have all the guns to division for new barrels anyways and that is where the headache is.
Well that's my take on it for what its worth anyways.
It wouldn't be all that hard to phase the introduction. Division A gets new 6.8 uppers/mags, sends old parts back to high level depot where they are either scrapped (if borderline worn out), or moved over to Division B where they use them up. Reduce purchases of the appropriate 5.56 parts that the 6.8 replaced, old parts get used up. This results in a gradual phaseout over several years, which also gives private industry time to ramp up production.
It's also alot easier to supply the new ammo to a particular division rather than sub-units I imagine.
You are correct and that is why neither you or me could ever work for the government as they will spend 20 billion and 2 years designing and implementating a system and then it will be so bad they might as will have just thrown the stuff in a big pile and put a sign come and get it on there. Government as th least efficient of all corporations in the world and the Mil is a branch of that.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.