New Experimental Army Rifle Uses "Telescoped" Ammunition

[Theinquisition]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/mili...ed-ammunition/

Interesting, a more powerful, lighter round, but with the increased volume, soldier would be able to carry less of it. I don't see the army going to this rifle, but I might want one for my personal collection.

Defense contractor Textron just unveiled a new rifle at the Modern Day Marine conference. Designed to use so-called "telescoped" ammunition, the new rifle promises a harder-hitting, lighter bullet for America's ground troops to fire. Whether the U.S. military is ready to embrace all the change a new rifle and ammunition would bring remains to be seen.

Traditional bullet cartridges have a bullet seated roughly halfway inside a brass shell casing, with gunpowder inside the casing. By contrast, the new rifle uses a 6.5-millimeter polymer-cased telescoped bullet. Telescoped rounds feature a bullet completely encased in a polymer shell, like a shotgun, with gunpowder surrounding the bullet in the shell.




The result is a cartridge that doesn't use brass, a considerable savings in weight. According the Kit Up! blog, telescoped ammunition is about 40 percent lighter than traditional ammunition. Textron could have channeled this weight savings into making lighter ammunition, but instead it chose to make new ammunition that packs a bigger punch. The rifle—and 20 rounds of ammunition—weighs a total of 9.7 pounds. By contrast, the standard M4A1 (pictured above) and 30 rounds of ammunition weigh 8.74 pounds.




Textron claims the new 6.5-millimeter round has 300 percent more energy than the standard U.S. Army bullet, the M855A1. That translates into greater knockdown power against human targets, more armor penetration, and longer range. A heavier bullet and more energy would solve a persistent complaint about the U.S. Army's M4A1 carbine—that the smaller 5.56-millimeter bullet often requires multiple hits to incapacitate a target and it lacks the range to make accurate long-range shots. The latter has been a particular complaint in Afghanistan, where long-range engagements are common.

Textron's rifle is a gas-operated, piston-driven rifle that has many familiar features drawn from the M4A1, including a charging handle and gas block. It features military-standard rails for the attachment of devices such as flashlights and lasers, and what appears to be Advanced Armament Corporation flash hider. The front and rear sights, pistol grip, and buttstock are all from firearm accessory manufacturer Magpul.





Tellingly, the 20-round magazine is at least as long as a standard M4A1 30 round magazine. While a 30-round magazine may be possible, too long a magazine blocks the user from shooting while prone. In fact, it appears polymer-encased telescoped rounds are actually wider than brass rounds. While each round is lighter, it takes up more volume than its brass-encased peers.

If that's the case, then Textron's design choice is understandable—if you must carry fewer bullets anyway, you might as well make them hit harder. There are always compromises in small arms design, and the new rifle is no exception. Is losing a third of available ammo and adding three quarters of a pound to the rifle worth a 300 percent increase in bullet energy? Decisions, decisions.

Will the Army adopt the new rifle and ammunition? The U.S. Army is notoriously cheap when it comes to small arms, and institutional inertia is strong. The -A1 upgrade to standard M4 rifles is only a few years old and conversions are still taking place. We also don't know the cost of the rifle and—more importantly—the ammunition, which will be purchased and stockpiled in the billions.

Still, if Textron can build a rifle that is reliable and inexpensive, and if the Army accepts the design tradeoffs inherent in the telescoped design, it could be the first all-new rifle design fielded by the Army in 51 years.

[WskyDK]

Wait, so you're telling me a bullet that's 15% larger in diameter than another has more stopping power?
Say it ain't so. Caseless cartidges aren't new.
(there's more snark in here than intended)

[Ayla]

Saw this on the front page and only saw until "Tele" and thought it was telekinetically shot.

Now I'm sad.

[Deleted]

So what's the advantage of this one to say, just bigger calibers? If you want punching power, you could just use higher calibers. If it costs the same and hits for the same, what advantage does this have?

[Theinquisition]

Wait, so you're telling me a bullet that's 15% larger in diameter than another has more stopping power?
Say it ain't so. Caseless cartidges aren't new.
(there's more snark in here than intended)

Indeed.

It's not going to happen, the army has billions of rounds of 5.56, they aren't going to spend the money on all new rifles with all new ammo.

- - - Updated - - -

So what's the advantage of this one to say, just bigger calibers? If you want punching power, you could just use higher calibers. If it costs the same and hits for the same, what advantage does this have?

higher caliber bullets are more expensive to make and are heavier. The advantage of this round is that its lighter than a standard 5.56 and has about 3x the punch. This makes it ideal for longer range shots, and 5.56 are notorious for being weak.

[WskyDK]

Indeed.

It's not going to happen, the army has billions of rounds of 5.56, they aren't going to spend the money on all new rifles with all new ammo.

- - - Updated - - -



higher caliber bullets are more expensive to make and are heavier. The advantage of this round is that its lighter than a standard 5.56 and has about 3x the punch. This makes it ideal for longer range shots, and 5.56 are notorious for being weak.

Oh, the surplus is why they won't even consider switching form the Baretta.

I mostly mean the numbers seem wonky; a bullet with double the mass and 3x the terminal performance would have to be moving VERY fast.
(example: a 300 winchester magnum (7.62x67) round has roughly 3x the energy as a 5.56mm round, but also roughly 3x the mass, and is moving 3x the speed) (all numbers pulled from wikipedia).

[Hooked]

They don't look like they can be reloaded.

[Masark]

Oh, the surplus is why they won't even consider switching form the Beretta.

What do you mean by "Beretta"?

[Misuteri]

This is really nothing more than a man portable/rifle sized concept of what 105-120MM tank guns have used when firing sabot rounds. It's also not too different from a normal 12 gauge shotgun firing flechette or pumpkin ball rounds.

[Deleted]

This is really nothing more than a man portable/rifle sized concept of what 105-120MM tank guns have used when firing sabot rounds. It's also not too different from a normal 12 gauge shotgun firing flechette or pumpkin ball rounds.

Which makes me wonder, is having a rifle that can use more than one type of ammo, difficult? Or couldnt you just adapt two types of ammo for one rifle type?

[WskyDK]

What do you mean by "Beretta"?

Oops lol bAretta
The current 9mm of choice for the DoD.
Widely panned as absolute dogshit by anyone who has to use them vs a 1911

- - - Updated - - -

Which makes me wonder, is having a rifle that can use more than one type of ammo, difficult? Or couldnt you just adapt two types of ammo for one rifle type?

If the platform was designed from the ground up like that then yes, but to try and retrofit an existing weapon system (without changing receivers, etc) is incredibly difficult. Both rounds would have to meet all the same dimensions

[Kellhound]

Wait, so you're telling me a bullet that's 15% larger in diameter than another has more stopping power?
Say it ain't so. Caseless cartidges aren't new.
(there's more snark in here than intended)

Its not caseless, it just made out of plastic and not metal.

[Deleted]

6.5 or 6.8 is the future.

[WskyDK]

Its not caseless, it just made out of plastic and not metal.

Yeah actually went back and read the specs (quick glance through before I had to get my kids from school).

They have a larger diameter, so you have less rounds in the mag, so you reload more, so you have to carry more rounds to remain combat effective (Current combat load is 210 rounds).
To keep the same combat load you'd need 11 mags (10.5 to be exact). This reduces the weight benefit to about 20% lighter than current load, but taking up a much larger area on your vest/pack

[Kellhound]

Oh, the surplus is why they won't even consider switching form the Baretta.

I mostly mean the numbers seem wonky; a bullet with double the mass and 3x the terminal performance would have to be moving VERY fast.
(example: a 300 winchester magnum (7.62x67) round has roughly 3x the energy as a 5.56mm round, but also roughly 3x the mass, and is moving 3x the speed) (all numbers pulled from wikipedia).

.300 Win Mag: 190gr bullet, 3083 ft/s, 4092 ft-lbs (24" barrel)
5.56x45: 63gr bullet, 3070 ft/s, 1325 ft-lbs. (20" barrel)

3X mass, same speed, 3x energy. If it was also travelling at 3X speed it would have 9X the energy.

- - - Updated - - -

What do you mean by "Beretta"?

M9 9mm POS that the US has as its main sidearm. A clear case of the replacement (M9) being very much inferior to the replacee (M1911A1).

[WskyDK]

.300 Win Mag: 190gr bullet, 3083 ft/s, 4092 ft-lbs (24" barrel)
5.56x45: 63gr bullet, 3070 ft/s, 1325 ft-lbs. (20" barrel)

3X mass, same speed, 3x energy. If it was also travelling at 3X speed it would have 9X the energy.

Thanks for the correction.
In keeping with that same sort of ratio, wouldn't the energy at impact be about the same as a normal 6.5mm then?
The claim of 300% more energy seems like marketing bullshit

[Deleted]

.300 Win Mag: 190gr bullet, 3083 ft/s, 4092 ft-lbs (24" barrel)
5.56x45: 63gr bullet, 3070 ft/s, 1325 ft-lbs. (20" barrel)

3X mass, same speed, 3x energy. If it was also travelling at 3X speed it would have 9X the energy.

- - - Updated - - -



M9 9mm POS that the US has as its main sidearm. A clear case of the replacement (M9) being very much inferior to the replacee (M1911A1).

The M9 is fine but like many military weapons they are worn and beat to fuck, a brand new one is a treat to shoot.

[Kellhound]

This is really nothing more than a man portable/rifle sized concept of what 105-120MM tank guns have used when firing sabot rounds. It's also not too different from a normal 12 gauge shotgun firing flechette or pumpkin ball rounds.

Its very different. Once it leaves the breach it is a normal bullet, it is not a sabot at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Which makes me wonder, is having a rifle that can use more than one type of ammo, difficult? Or couldnt you just adapt two types of ammo for one rifle type?

The basic M-16 lower can use uppers of several different calibers.

- - - Updated - - -

6.5 or 6.8 is the future.

Too wimpy. Time to return to the 7.62x63.

[Justpassing]

Nice, we definetly need more guns.

[Deleted]

Too wimpy. Time to return to the 7.62x63.

We both know that .280 British was perfect, the USA fucked all of NATO by refusing it.