partheus wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:13 pm
Since we're on the topic, I will love to hear your thoughts on the US move to the Sig 6.8X51, @Timmy. Seems like it's supposed to replace the 556 NATO, which, I am struggling to understand. The Sig round generates 80k psi pressures. Won't that make burst and auto fire damn near impossible? Could our babus be looking at the US move and trying to copy it as best they can?
There is a lot to unpack to this, such as all of the reasons we've heard about the move from 30-06 to 7.62 NATO to 5.56 and now to 6.8 x 51, which seems like nothing more than going bck to 7.62 x 51 NATO, but just with a little smaller diameter bullet.
But there are several issues that are lost, I think, by the gun discussions between us in the gun community regarding this new cartridge.
One is the operating pressure. 80,000 psi is a huge jump from the 65,000 psi of modern high intensity commercial hunting cartridges. This high pressure is so hot that the new cartridges must be made in two sections -- brass AND steel -- to handle these pressures. The reason for doing this is because the US Army wanted:
1. Long range capability that would:
2. Pierce body armor,
3. When fired from a "short" barrel (short being 400 mm or so)
Let's look at what the US Army was dealing with throughout history:
After the USA Civil War, the Army returned to being a colonial constabulary force: it largely dealt with expanding the USA's frontier into areas not settled by white people of European descent (excluding, of course, Hispanic folks who were either white or mixed ethnicity, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion!). The single shot Trapdoor Springfield in 45-70 worked to meet these service demands.
Around 1890, following the French introduction of smokeless powder that immediately made all other service rifles obsolete, the US Army wanted to join the modern world, which it had ignored. The Trapdoor Springfield's technology was essentially that of a developed Civil War percussion musket conversion, like the British Snider and other efforts. It was hardly as elegant as European single shot developments like the Martini Henry, the Comblain, the 1871 Mauser, or even the Remington Rolling block (another USA rifle0. It didn't need to be, since the Army was only called upon to deal with Native American disturbances.
So, the Army went with the Krag Jorgenson and the Navy with the 6 mm Lee rifle. The Army's selection was found greatly wanting in the Spanish American War, and adapted a mostly copied Mauser 1898 with a slightly more powerful 30 caliber cartridge (30-06) that could be loaded with stripper clips. (the US Army's 45-70 Trapdoors were woefully outclassed by the Spanish 1893 Mausers in 7 x 57 mm, and even the new Krags in regular Army service couldn't match the rapidity offered by stripper clip loading of the Mauser system.)
No longer fighting Native Americans on the frontier, the 30-06 fought for the USA through 3 wars of conventional battlefield demands: WW1, WW2, and the Korean War. The 30-06 had served with the American bastardized copy of the Mauser, the 1903 Springfield, a modified British design, the 1917 Enfield, and the M1 Garand (which, interestingly, dispensed with Mauser stripper clip loading for the Mannlicher "en bloc" system).
After the Korean War, Winchester's parent company, Olin, had developed new "ball powder" propellant that would allow performance similar to 30-06 in a shorter case. This had many advantages for designing better automatic weapons -- machine guns. The US Army's battlefield automatic weapons, the Browning 30 caliber machine gun and the Browning BAR, were woefully inadequate compared to the German MG 34 and MG 42 automatic weapons.
The battlefield requirements were not changed, but the strategic situation now was different: rather than having an overwhelming superiority of Allied forces (Britain, France, and the USA in WW1 and Britain, the USSR, and the USA in WW2), now the USA faced a numerically superior foe -- the Warsaw Pact -- on the battlefield, and needed to counteract them by supplying a largely American force across the Atlantic Ocean.
This meant, in a move that favored the US Army's geniusL logistics, standardizing on a round that could support a battle rifle and a long range capability in machine guns. This led to the adoption of the 7.6 x 51 NATO cartridge. Here, you will note the aficionados of British arms development noting that they wanted a 6.8 mm cartridge that was supposed to be superior. these folks are probably laughing in self-congratulation now, with the USA's adoption of the 6.8 x 51 mm, slapping themselves on the back with predictable smug self-congratulation. However, what was true in 1955 isn't the same thing as what is true today. Not only is it different, but we have gone through another phase of battlefield development between then and now, which is just coming to an end.
What was needed in 1955 was a round that would work on the European battlefield in conflict facing massed armies that could be used in multiple weapons systems. The US Army deemed that round to be the 7.62 x 51 in the M14 rifle, which was nothing more than a development of the earlier M1 Garand. The British wanted a 6.8 mm bullpup rifle, using a cartridge that wouldn't have had the downrange performance in automatic weapons that the 7.62 x 51 did. The US Army took the view that it was better to have the good for logistics purposes (after all, the bulk of munitions would be coming across the ocean from the USA, not from factories in a war-battered Europe), rather than the British approach of "my soldier has a better gun than yours."
The Europeans did have their own weapons, however, in the FN FAL, which I would view as a superior rifle to the M14. The M14, in any event, was hardly successful in the insurgent jungle campaign fought by the US Army in the 60s: Vietnam.
For Vietnam, the M16 was eventually adopted. This rifle started out as the AR10, which was (and is) chambered in 7.62 x 51 -- a competitor to the FN FAL. (Here, I'll note that the AR10 was like the AR15 we know today: a rotating bolt auto rifle operated by direct gas impingement, while the FN FAL used a tipping block action, similar to the Soviet SVT 38, SVT 40, and SKS, operated by a conventional piston. Scaled down to use a military version of the Remington 22 Magnum, the 5.56, the M16 was first used by the Air Force as a replacement for the anemic M1 Carbine.
Despite problems large and small, the M16 has evolved into the current M4, using a heavy bullet offering greater penetration and downrange performance. But note, the M16/M4, facing off against the Soviet 7.62 x 39, has been used and developed for conflicts in the 3rd World, not for large battlefield use. It is used against insurgents, and now we are beginning to see the widespread use of body armor on the battlefield. While the 5.56 has had questionable "knock down" power compared to the 7.62 x 39, it has had superior accuracy, especially at range, due to the rifle's design. Locking up the bolt directly to the barrel, and only using the receiver to guide the bolt, not only makes the AR platform more inherently accurate than the AK, that's how it works out on the battlefield, too. Also, while the piston operated action of the AK has more reliability, the design doesn't offer the accuracy advantages or weight advantages of the AR's direct impingement system. Furthermore, the inexpensive stamped steel AR receiver with riveted locking trunnion is not as rigid as the AR's forged aluminum receiver. Check the slow motion firing video of an AK firing on Youtube, and note how the whole barrel and receiver are flopping about like a spastic loose firehose, and you will get the idea here.
Now that we are entering an era where forces must not only deal with insurgents in close quarter fights in cities, but also with larger armies in open field combat, such as what is now taking place in Ukraine. This lesson isn't being lost on the US Army, which began investigating this and produced a secret report about it in 2017. These requirements are where the 6.8 x 51 cartridge originates.
The new cartridge has to work in multiple platforms, like the 7.62 NATO. It has to work at long range, like the 7.62 NATO, but it has to work in a compact short barreled platform, like the M4. But now, it must operate against armored troops, too, which neither the 5.56 or the 7.62 x 39 will address. This is why, I think, that a 300 Blackout solution wouldn't work. It would fall short on downrange performance, and against armored targets, too.
The US Army, in sort, is asking to have its cake and eat it too, and this requires a cartridge with much increased performance over the M4/5.56 package from a short barrel. This means going back to a larger cartridge and a larger bullet (both in weight and diameter -- "sectional density"). Handling the larger cartridge, similar in size to the old 7.62 NATO means using a receiver the size of the AR10 or FN FAL, so the old AR15/M16/M4 platform won't work. But, the vastly increased pressure, combined with new propellants, supports meeting these new requirements, along with a new technology cartridge case to handle those pressures.
How does this relate to India?
First of all, battlefields are becoming more expensive. Ships have all kinds of gadgets and sophisticated systems, but just a single relatively small 120 mm size cannon is sufficient to displace giant 400 mm weapons. Rockets shoot down rockets, and new rockets travel at very high velocities. Aircraft are proceeding from Gen 5 to Gen 6, and are beginning to leave the old F15, FA18, MiG29, and Rafale Gen 4 aircraft behind, despite improvements in those aircraft. So, likewise, the individual soldier now often has an optical sight on his weapon, is equipped with various radio and location devices, and wears body armor. Every facet of battle is increasing the cost of individual weapons -- this cannot be gotten around or ignored.
We've been used to civilian use of hand-me-down military technology for a long time. I don't see how the cost of the new high pressure cartridges will come into widespread use in the civilian market due to cost, but maybe there's something I'm not seeing here. But for the military, a country that wants to field an army with weapons that can match or exceed all possible enemies, this new technology expensive ammunition seems to be a must, along with the rifles and other weapons to go with it. This is just like the expense of aircraft and ships rising.
Think back to the pre-dreadnought battleship era: Britain had over 50 battleships, and Germany and a few more than 20. The dreadnought revolution meant that battleships were much more expensive, so that at the outbreak of WW1, Britain had 24 battleships and 9 battlecruisers, while Germany had 16 battleships and 5 battlecruisers. (Saying this, I'm only giving an overview -- there is a lot of technicality behind these statements, so I will abbreviate it like this.) War got a lot more expensive! It grew even more expensive by WW2, and afterwards, ships like Adm Hyman Rickover's nuclear submarines firing Polaris and then Trident missiles grew tremendously expensive.
Here, the economy is shown to be the ultimate weapon, isn't it? Affording the weapons needed to fight modern conflicts is a real issue, right down to the individual soldier. Weapons must be chosen that can be bought in quantities that will equip and army, which includes all the manufacturing and development that goes with it.
Pakistan and the battles that take place on the Western frontier must be planned for, but also the Chinese, too. But, there's more: Right now, Modi is buying a lot of Russian oil, and that comes through the Suez Canal. What would India's position be if the Houthis closed down the Bab el-Mandeb Strait? This would certainly impact India's economy. Granted, the US Navy is leading efforts to oppose this, but now that the USA is self-sufficient in oil and has little desire to support Chinese shipping container trade through the area, can India afford to "Let George do it" in an area so vital to its economic interests? There are many ramifications to this question that I'll let members mull over.
Afghanistan and the challenges and rivalries in that part of the world also come to mind, beside the threats in the Northeast and Northwest, and the Western threat.
But my point here is that it may be quite realistic to assume that India may need to project power somewhere, at least in the Indian Ocean theater, to protect its interests. The issues facing the IPKF in the past have been cited, but this sort of challenge facing the Indian forces could be much more intense.
Combining all of these issues, it seems to me that buying foreign weapons might be a good deal for the suppliers, but I'm not convinced that, beyond the "band aid" approach of piecemeal amounts of weapons, particularly rifles, is a viable long term approach to meeting India's needs that I've outlined above.
Not that India has to follow the US Army slavishly, but I am hopeful that some group of people are taking these issues into account, along with their demands and challenges. Generally, I see foreign weapons purchases as not being optimal or viable, both from an economic point of view and a strategic point of view. To be blunt, one doesn't see the Chinese doing this. Not everything China does is perfect -- far from it, but achieving some domestic supply for its military needs is something China has been working at for a long long time, from the days when neighborhood shops copied M96 Mauser pistols at the turn of the last century.
All of this is to say that selecting a cartridge, and selecting a rifle are two things. We talk about these things here as gun aficionados. But such decisions also include infrastructure to make and support these weapons, "hardening" this infrastructure to make it resistant to attack and environmental threats, training people to use and support the rifles in service, etc. In short, this is a huge undertaking for a nation and an Army as large as India's, not to mention the number and disparate nature of the threats she faces.
We see carryings-on in the civilian arms sector -- that's why we are here. But the civilian market doesn't operate in a vacuum. Expertise in design and capability of manufacture do reflect somewhat between civilian and military sectors. I'm being careful here, because a lot of what I'm saying is beyond the scope of our forums, and yet it is not. I will leave this to individual members to reflect upon these issues in their own minds.
But back to the direct issue, it would seem to me that India, like the US Army, would be well-served by a multi-use cartridge and rifle too, given the threats facing her. After all, the demands of the US Army, based on the threats and tasks it faces, aren't so different from India's situation now, or what may be faced in the near future.
Now, as regards the weapons available to the average person, I believe that, like the US Army's cartridge, the civilian market in India is best served by PRESSURE. For instance, I see the high performance "30 Super Carry" cartridge as a way forward of the future. Bullet technology has improved and made the 9 mm pretty much equal to the 45 Auto in performance, and I don't think that high pressure 30 caliber cartridges will be far behind, given their advantages in recoil and number of rounds carried by a gun.
Consider, in the realm of handgun development, the matter of pressure that enters into the development of the 38 Colt, to the 38 Special, to the 357 Magnum. A similar development took place with the 44 Russian, to the 44 Special, to the 44 Magnum. This is old history, but it is possible to leap over the over century old 32 S&W Long and 32 Auto into the present world by using new cartridges and new weapons. This, I think, would be the way forward for the civilian market, although how the political situation would change when such weapons and cartridges were introduced is a discussion I'll pass.
Ruger and other companies have revolvers chambered in 327 Magnum, and locked breech pistols chambered in 30 Super Carry are also available. The FN57 in 5.7 mm might also generate some interest.
Developing these technologies would also have some spill over effect on the military market. Granted, there are PB/NPB issues between military and civilian markets, and the sidearm isn't a very large factor on the battlefield, but none the less, this would be an advantage, I believe.
Having offered my opinions as requested, I will chup and leave the floor to you and others.
?