|
|
|
Regular Joe
 
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/31/2004 11:42 AM
Posts: 121,
Visits: 1
|
|
Major problem with 243 Win is that it eats barrels, bigtime. It's a hot match rifle round but they only last one season, or about 2K rds. Add full auto fire and you'd need two or three uppers per rifle in order to ensure you have at least one that's up.
Full auto 7.62x51 can be doable with either a good muzzle brake or a good can, combined with an inline stock like that already possessed by the AR series of rifles. The M14 was a MF because it's stock contributed to muzzle rise and all the weight was towards the rear of the rifle. With a steel OPS can on the barrel, you could fire 3-5rd bursts and keep them all on a chest at 25m, I almost guarentee.
6.8mm combines most of the power of the 7.62, the light rds weight and low recoil of the 5.56 and works in the short M16 frame. About as good as it gets. S/F...Ken M
"It's easy to be hard, it's hard to be smart"
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
6.8mm combines most of the power of the 7.62, the light rds weight and low recoil of the 5.56 and works in the short M16 frame.
Well I wouldn't say that the 6.8mm is going to have the low recoil of a 5.56mm because it won't. The bullet is heavier and travelling faster than both the 7.62mm CETME and the 7.62x39mm. So recoil should be somewhere in between 7.62x39mm and 7.62mm NATO. And that's nothing to sneeze at in a full auto lightweight assault rifle IMO.
Here's some food for thought. What about using a 55gr. M193 bullet loaded into a 7.62mm NATO case using a plastic discarding sabot like the old Remington Xcellorator rounds? Or you could load the .243 bullet with a discarding plastic sabot. You now have a lower recoil super high velocity cartridge that won't wear out rifling and can be used in any 7.62mm NATO chambered rifle without modification. All you have to do is insert the mag. That should make a 7.62mm rifle very controllable on full auto. We could also go the CETME route and adopt a reduced charge 7.62x51mm that can be fired without modications in existing weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/29/2003 5:29 AM
Posts: 125,
Visits: 1
|
|
What about 7,62 X 39 ammo? or back to the orginal FN FAL ammo (it was 7,62 X 43 or something like this) - FN FAL was controllable in full auto mode....
"Polish soldier fights for freedom of other nations, but dies only for Poland" - Gen Stanislaw Maczek (1892 - 1994)
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Joe
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/31/2004 11:42 AM
Posts: 121,
Visits: 1
|
|
quote:
Well I wouldn't say that the 6.8mm is going to have the low recoil of a 5.56mm because it won't. The bullet is heavier and travelling faster than both the 7.62mm CETME and the 7.62x39mm.
6.8mm is a 115gn bullet at about 2700fps, when compared to 147gn bullet at 2800fps, the choice is pretty clear. A 124gn bullet at 2400fps(7.62x39) is going to be fairly close. The 6.8 is burning much less powder than the 7.62 case and a similar amount to the 7.62x39.
quote:
And that's nothing to sneeze at in a full auto lightweight assault rifle IMO.
I've fired full auto AR-10's that are not that bad, the FAL is also pretty good, due to their straight line stocks. The 6.8 is reportedly not bad at all in an M16/M4 platform, especially with a can or brake.
As for the light bullet/sabot issue, please E-mail me at the address listed in the profile. I have a memo you might find interesting. S/F...Ken M
"It's easy to be hard, it's hard to be smart"
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
quote:
6.8mm is a 115gn bullet at about 2700fps
Ken, I was thinking that the 6.8mm was around 130 grains. If it is 115gr, then I see your point.
You have email.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
| It looks like Robinson will submit a 6.8mm M96 for the SCAR-L contract from what I've read on the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Past PNET Supporter
Last Login: 9/7/2005 7:22 PM
Posts: 6,666,
Visits: 289
|
|
Here is a good SOCOM link with more info on the SCAR-L and SCAR-H:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/spell.ppt
Here is another good Army link with info on the SCAR:
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:wC8WSMAvHHkJ:w4.pica.army.mil/ccac/ccl/ccl-a/SCAR%2520-41402-Gus%2520Augstine%2520-%2520CCL-A.ppt+SCAR-L+rifle&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://w4.pica.army.mil/ccac/ccl/ccl-a/SCAR%20-41402-Gus%20Augstine%20-%20CCL-A.ppt
quote:
SCAR-Light (5.45 Russian, 5.56 NATO, 6.8 SOF, 7.62 Russian)
SCAR-Heavy (7.62 NATO thru .338 Cal)
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2005 10:13 PM
Posts: 5,502,
Visits: 70
|
|
That was good scoop. We do need the same paltform to do different jobs, but I think we need to shoot higher.
I need to do some research.
Too bad I don't have a login/pass for the last ppt.
advanced Carl Guatav hmm. This has some potential. I think we need to ditch the SMAW or the Carl Gustav. They are too similar.
Go with God, but make Him walk the point.
If you load a mudfoot down with a lot of gadgets he has to watch somebody a lot more simply equipped - say with a stone axe - will sneak up and bash his head in while he is trying t | | | |