akd Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Neither 6.5mm or 6.8mm are likely to be adopted (but I will say here that the 6.5mm Grendel is superior, but doesn't have the same names pushing it). The military machine is not going to change calibers for an incremental increase in performance. Adopting either round would require a barrel and bolt change for every M16/M4 in inventory, and require every issued M16 magazine to be exchanged. It would also require M249s with new barrels and new feed systems, maybe even necessitating a redesign. And that only covers the individual weapons, not the changes that would need to be made up and down the chain of logistics. Possibly it could be argued that all weapons could be standardized on a cartridge like the 6.5mm Grendel (but not the 6.8mm SPC, as it offers comparitively poor long-range performance), thus greatly simplifying logistics in the long run, but why develope a new medium machinegun system that is constrained by a cartridge made to fit the dimensions of an M16 magazine? Why not develope an entire weapons family around some ideal cartridge (e.g. 7x46mm), or around a new cartridge technology? Most likely 5.56mm will be with us until that new weapons system comes along, which will offer an exponential, rather than incremental, increase in capability. Regarding the .416 Barret, the special ops community has the flexibilty to play around with a number of new products and alternative calibers, but that doesn't mean a wholesale switch is happening, or even likely to happen. Don't take that dude on Future Weapons too seriously. Just because he whispers it doesn't mean it's true. [ November 25, 2007, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: akd ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiny_tanker Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Why adapt the M-16/M-4 to a new round? It would probably be more cost ant time effective to create a new weapon, since you'd be replacing all of the significant pieces on the others anyway. Why not get a more reliable weapon out of the deal. I don't really see that happening though, as its been said before, why go for small gains in performance when your weapons still effective. It won't be until there is a significant increase in body armor effectiveness that any changes come about, and then we might see a completely new round come into existence. On that Barret .416 round, you have to keep in mind that would mean replacing thousands of weapons not the hundreds of thousands you would for a combat rifle. So its more feasible for that to happen. Another thing to consider is its penetration capabilities as compared to .50cal since it is supposed to be an anti-material weapon. It would be nice to see some technical data on this. EDIT: Ok I should stop being lazy... Without doing to much research, I see that our current Barret .50cal's could easily be switched to the .416 with a simple barrel swap. Though it looks like you loose some of your weight but get better muzzle velocity. [ November 28, 2007, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: tiny_tanker ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acrashb Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Originally posted by Adam1: Nice to see you AB. I have a question - I noticed that some handguns are using polygonal rifling. My question is, how much does this change the pistol's accuracy? And does rifling produce torque in the shooter's grip? Hi! I don't think polygonal is any more accurate than cut or button or hammer-forged rifling (if it were, benchrest shooters would have polygonal-bore barrels). It's easier to manufacture, easier to clean, and supposedly gets higher velocity all else being equal. Downsides: lead bullets leave a lot of lead behind, which can eventually become constricting enough to create dangerous pressure. Yes, spinning the bullet up creates torque. It's hardly noticeable until you get to larger calibres with bigger, heavier bullets (like .50AE). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 From akd: "Regarding the .416 Barret, the special ops community has the flexibilty to play around with a number of new products and alternative calibers, but that doesn't mean a wholesale switch is happening, or even likely to happen." Very true. When you only have to buy a few thousand as opposed to several million it adds a lot of flexability. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.