Cost considerations aside [I know, but indulge me] should a general

Question's been done to death.

Assuming you could get a 6-7mm projectile with the same or less weight (i.e. caseless), 800m range, and only pay for it with a smidgen more recoil, sure, why not.

My kid wants a pony if we're making wishes though.

>>31712721
>same weight
>smidgen more recoil
Aren't these unrealistic goals, though? Going to have to bite the bullet on one of them, at least.

>>31712794

Smidgen being somewhere between 6.8 and .243. 6.5x55 is probably too much, but I don't kick doors, so I may be overestimating the muzzle rise.

>>31712881
So something closer to the 6mm SAW or the 6mm Unified thing the Soviets were working on and less like the 7x46 UIAC or .264 USA prototypes.

>>31712926
So a 276 pedersen or 280 British?

>>31712949
Well the Pederson and the British cartridges both fired larger and heavier bullets than the two 6mm prototypes and I believe both of them have significantly larger case diameters, though I don't have the specifics for the 6mm Unified.

>>31712949

Can't find mass/velocity info on 276 pedersen, but .280 British was a 140gr @ 2500. 6.5x55 is 140gr @ 2600.

I think that would be excessive recoil in an automatic service rifle.

File: bulletlol.png (59KB, 1066x434px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1066x434px

>>31712648
>should a general purpose cartridge be adopted by the military?
its tricky
if you have most if not all guns shooting the same ammo it helps a lot with the logistics of supply and that is the backbone of a military campaign
but one kind of ammo is not best for all scenarios and conditions
this is why DARPA is working on ways for troops to 3d print the ammo that they need closer to the front lines so logistically they send the same stuff to make ammo and the troops make it into the ammo that they need

>>31713215
Sounds like you'd still have to pin down a few calibers for the weapons to be chambered in, though it would certainly simplify the ammunition logistics.

I think in the near term, though, the adoption of weapons systems like that .338 machine gun could open up the way for a larger general issue cartridge without having to trend too much towards a full battle rifle round.

>>31712648
yes. 6mm SAW equivalent with goat form factor projectiles.

No.

General Purpose cartridges offer no real benifit over the conventional modern rifle, especially SCHV chambered rifles.

The most important thing in Infantry small arms engagments is not individual marksmanship or terminal effectivness or combat range, but is instead volume of fire. Those other factors play into it, but in a general sense, so long as a cartridge meets certain minimums, what matters is what volume the cartridge and bullet can be carried and fired at.

5.56, 5.45 And 5.8 are the best modern incarnates of these. You want a cartridge that you are able to fire and carry high volumes of to supress Infantry. More shooting means there's a higher chance to hit Infantry, and that means more killing.

This assumes only the Infantry rifle generally.

This is the entire basis of the US Armys Advanced combat rifle program basically, as does project SALVO and the OICW concept to a degree.

>>31713721

Only battle rifle guys are trying to remedy the range/terminal ballistics issue. Everyone else pushing GPC wants to homogenize the supply chains for the service rifles and medium machine guns.

Hence the requirement that it be as light as existing 5.56 but shoot roughly as far as 7.62x51.

>>31713721
>5.56, 5.45 And 5.8 are the best modern incarnates of these.
Then why hasn't Russia phased out 7.62x39 and why was the US forced to scramble to ship .308 rifles to the guys in Afghanistan? The constant tinkering with the 5.56 round itself is a pretty clear indication that perceived deficiencies in its performance are being corrected.

The problem is that you end up with more weight/less ammo for rifles.
This could be solved with caseless/plastic casings/etc but caseless 5.56 would always be more weight efficient than caseless 6.5.

So the real question is "Does improved logistics and increased effective range outweigh decrease in volume of fire?"

>>31713892
>caseless
Caseless is a dead end. The telescoped stuff or the polymer/brass combo are a lot more realistic.

>>31713892

> Decreased volume of fire

Depends on how much lighter all that 6.5 ammo weighs than our current M80A1 for the machine gun. Lord knows the ammo bearer's knees would surely appreciate it.

File: 1465925240844.jpg (207KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1200x900px

>>31713869
7.62 AKMS' are very plenty and still issued with a PBS-1 suppressor as a special purpose rifle.
We initially wanted .308 rifles because of the longer engagement distances in the Middle East.

>>31713869

Barrier penetration in Russia, plus the MVD.

Afghanistan does not explode modern Infantry combat in the least, it's a unique issue, and they aren't rushing 7.62x51mm rifles to USAF forces, theyre giving them to squad and platoon level designated Marksmen.

>>31713834

The supply chain really doesn't have as many issues as people think. I get the issue but the system works fairly well now and there's a reason for it.

>>31713869
Caseless is hardly a dead end. Its just a long stride.

>>31713976

Fucking autocorrect.

*Does not exemplify
*Rushing to ISAF forces

File: GuP Alice tank.gif (185KB, 450x504px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 450x504px

Why aren't any gun companies working on a modern service revolver chambered in 5.56? It can be a 6 or 7 shot revolver that fires regular 5.56 and will replace the M9 and our need for 9mm.

Give me one (1) reason why this is a bad idea. The M9 is a peace of shit and pistols have barely seen action in combat since the first world war.

The military should use the old 30-06 again. Shit probably destroyed worlds.

>>31713647
RIP barrel life