Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO

More
11 years 4 months ago #27050 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

mlotziii wrote: My vote is for Combat Bees!

Yes, not a rifle round at all ... but bees that are engineered to kill people. Unleash 200,000 killer combat bees from a cruise missile and just wait them out. Then have a kill switch that would render them all harmless.

Just thinking...

Actually you are not that far off some concepts. One concept that some very well educated futurists have postulated, is an automated, mobile "factory" if you will. You land it in the right spot of a country or area, and it starts replicating mechanical "bugs" programmed to attack in such numbers that they can overwhelm every living thing in their path. Sci-Fi gurus think that would be a logical first wave of a hypothetical alien invasion. The dawn of 3D printers and Nanotechnology puts this concept just over the horizon. A little disquieting,

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago #27051 by mrraley
Replied by mrraley on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

13fcolt wrote: .300blk is looking really good. It will never be 7.62x51, but it does bring more to the table within the 5.56 envelope without significant increases in weight or loss in capacity.

I've got to go with sisco though. Weapons technology has been pretty stagnant over the last 100+ years. As it stands, any upgrade is more sideways than forward, just the same old thing done a little different. I'd like to see something truly new like caseless, or railgun, or phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range.


That's what they said and thought about the .458 SOCOM too and we all see where that went.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago #27055 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
All this discussion proves one thing: The modern combat environment is the toughest test laboratory there is for any rifle cartridge combination. Even the best rifle and or cartridge will quickly have it's flaws exposed. Any futuristic weapon would have it's flaws exposed the first time it was in combat. Leb's comment about reducing combat load is significant, the lighter the better, as long as terminal effectiveness is not compromised. If anybody has read Heinlein' Sci Fi book "Starship Troopers", I am guessing a hundred years from now a 11-B will look a lot like what he describes. If combat load is no longer a factor, and everyone is wearing ballistic armor, a terminally guided semi-auto RPG might end up being the basic infantry weapon.
Anyway, back to the discussion: Instead of a new round, what about a weapon the quickly converts to either of the military standards, 5.56 or 7.62 NATO? Some private ventures are working on this. Logistically I don't know if it would be possible.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago #27065 by LebbenB
Replied by LebbenB on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

I've read the feedback of the Army shooters running the .300 Blkout in competition and got the impression it is a rainbow round, nto real effective/accurate beyond 350m? Correct, or did I misinterpret...?

300 BLK is ballistically very similar to 7.62x39. But it has a wider selection of bullets with a better CD than 7.62x39. 300-350 is about all I'd want it for. I have read of folks saying they've gone out to 500-600 with it, but I imagine that it's one heck of a holdover.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago - 11 years 4 months ago #27095 by SOC
Replied by SOC on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

LebbenB wrote:

I've read the feedback of the Army shooters running the .300 Blkout in competition and got the impression it is a rainbow round, nto real effective/accurate beyond 350m? Correct, or did I misinterpret...?

300 BLK is ballistically very similar to 7.62x39. But it has a wider selection of bullets with a better CD than 7.62x39. 300-350 is about all I'd want it for. I have read of folks saying they've gone out to 500-600 with it, but I imagine that it's one heck of a holdover.

The 300 BLK also shines in very short barrels. A 7.5" 300 BLK AR with proper ammo has more muzzle energy and much better terminal ballistics than M855 out of an 11.5" AR.

Would make a great PDW as well as optional 7.62x39+ ballistics in a slightly larger platform.
Last edit: 11 years 4 months ago by SOC.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 4 months ago #27096 by OleCowboy
Replied by OleCowboy on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

LebbenB wrote:

I've read the feedback of the Army shooters running the .300 Blkout in competition and got the impression it is a rainbow round, nto real effective/accurate beyond 350m? Correct, or did I misinterpret...?

300 BLK is ballistically very similar to 7.62x39. But it has a wider selection of bullets with a better CD than 7.62x39. 300-350 is about all I'd want it for. I have read of folks saying they've gone out to 500-600 with it, but I imagine that it's one heck of a holdover.

One one forum, one guy brags about killing bear at 300 yds with a .22, small game at a 1000 yds. and he was not kidding. Those stories abound. Input the data on the 300 and at 550 the rd is spent, you could almost catch it in your hand.

By all my research the 300 appears to be a good if not great rd, but for military use it would require some change of culture and a change of how we field combat units and the TO&E.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.