# New service rifle cartridge



## renrich (Jan 18, 2008)

The 223 Remington (5.56) is not legal to hunt big game in most states in the Union. The average body weight of a whitetail in Texas will not exceed perhaps 125 pounds. In my opinion (I always have one, I may not always be right but I am always sure) if the cartridge won't provide sure kills on an animal that size, how can it be expected to kill our enemies with heavy clothes on or even flak jackets. I was trained on the M1 Garand and later the M14. The 3006 and 308 are good one shot killers on most big game and on men also. They also have good penetration on barriers such as wood fences, brick veneer walls, etc and have good down range ballistics, being fairly accurate out 500 yds or more with close to 1000 ft lbs of energy at that range. I understand the rationale for the 5.56 being the weight and bulk of the ammo means a lot of ammo can be carried. If it takes 3 or 4 rounds to kill your enemy, would it not make more sense to carry less rounds but get surer kills with each round. I also understand that the 7.62 Nato requires a bigger, bulkier and heavier rifle and is still not controllable in auto fire. My proposal for the new cartridge would be: A new case, downsized from the 284 Win that would have the powder capacity of the 7x57 Mauser, and in .277(same as 270 Win) cal with a 130 grain boat tail spitzer bullet. The overall length of the 223 Rem is 2.26 inches, the overall length of the 284 Win is 2.80 inches. I estimate the length of the new cartridge would be somewhere around 2.5 inches. With a case capacity similar to the 7x57 it should develop about 2800 fps muzzle vel and because of the good ballistic coefficient and sectional density of the bullet with a battle zero at 200 yds it should shoot pretty flat to 400 yards and still maintain 1000 ft lbs of energy at that range. I used to shoot a 7x57 and the recoil is quite light, plenty light for a woman and would in a rifle of around 7.5 to 8 lbs be manageable in full automatic. However I do not believe full auto is desirable for your average infantryman. This cartridge would be ideal also for the SAW. The case would of course be fatter than the 223 but I believe the average soldier would have no trouble with an ammo load of two thirds the size now carried. I know many of you on this forum have recent combat experience(I have none) and many are hunters. What do youall think.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 18, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

Sounds like you would enjoy the various articles on Tony Williams's site under the Army heading:

BOOKS BY ANTHONY G WILLIAMS

Maybe you should drop Tony a note regarding your thread, the discussion of "ideal" developments is one of his hobbies 

In fact, I just see that he has already made a suggestion here:

ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## fly boy (Jan 18, 2008)

isn't a 5.56 a 556 round?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2008)

? huh?


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

The .223 Remington is the civilian name for the 5.56 mm ball cartridge used in the military. I believe that the idea for it as a military round originated during the McNamara era(SecDef) which is another reason I don't like it.


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

HoHun thanks for the reference. I read the article about the new assault rifle discussion and I have three observations: Obviously our news media(and our Congress) do not know what a true assault rifle is; Our US Army, if it possible to make a mistake, will usually make it(however there may be politics in play there) an example is the Spencer Rifle during the War of Northern Aggression. Here was a seven shot, repeating, breech loading, self contained metallic cartridge rifle which saw some service in the war which was discarded after the war for a single shot rifle and carbine. It is a miracle that the Garand was adopted. Last observation; I don't believe a full auto rifle is needed for the standard weapon in the US Army. A handy, accurate, powerful, reliable, semi auto rifle coupled with a soldier who has extensive marksmanship training is the ticket IMHO. The more accessories a weapon has the less soldier proof it is and the more things can go wrong.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Here was a seven shot, repeating, breech loading, self contained metallic cartridge rifle which saw some service in the war which was discarded after the war for a single shot rifle and carbine. 

I'm not an expert on this period, but I've heard from a friend of mine that the Spencer carbine actually was quite successful on the battlefield, which would make the step backwards you're describing all the more surprising.

Likewise, my friend mentioned that the Winchester repeaters were used with great success by the Turkish against the Russians, though only in minor engagements ... really makes one wonder why the idea didn't catch on.

>Last observation; I don't believe a full auto rifle is needed for the standard weapon in the US Army. A handy, accurate, powerful, reliable, semi auto rifle coupled with a soldier who has extensive marksmanship training is the ticket IMHO. 

You might have a point there. Are you familiar with the H&K G11, though? It is capable of firing bursts of three rounds from the recoiling barrel, getting out all three rounds before the recoil is transferred to the shoulder of the soldier. Thus, the recoil has no chance of disturbing his aim and the accuracy is virtually the same as in single-shot mode. I believe there is a recent Russian weapon of more conventional construction that fires doublets in a similar way. 

(The G11 might be too specialized a design to be "universally ideal", having been built for a conventional Third World War started by numerically vastly superior Warsaw Pact armies invading Western Germany. In other environments, I could imagine that you might want to compromise some rate of fire for long-range capability, for example.)

Not that I'm an expert, my hands-on experience is limited to the old H&K G3 service rifle.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

Actually I believe that what got the Army to buy Spencers was that Lincoln himself went out in the White House Yard and tried and liked it so much he made the Army buy some. I believe the argument the Army used against repeaters was that they would be wasteful of ammo. I know our boys (Confederates) did not enjoy being pitted against repeaters. Custer's men at the Little Big Horn were armed with breech loading single shot rifles while many of the Indians had repeaters and this was some ten years after the War was over with. I believe some of the service rifles in use with our military have the three round burst feature.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Actually I believe that what got the Army to buy Spencers was that Lincoln himself went out in the White House Yard and tried and liked it so much he made the Army buy some. 

Interesting! I seem to remember that a TV programme mentioned that Lincoln also advocated the purchase of Gatling guns, but I might be confusing things here ... he seems to have been a believer in technology, I'd say!

>I believe the argument the Army used against repeaters was that they would be wasteful of ammo. 

Quite credible! I think the Austrians followed the same line of thinking (which put them in a bad position against the Dreyse-repeater equipped Prussians in the Austro-Prussian War).

>Custer's men at the Little Big Horn were armed with breech loading single shot rifles while many of the Indians had repeaters and this was some ten years after the War was over with. 

I have read about modern archeology of Little Big Horn ... apparently, the number of rifle cartridges found on the terrain lead to one hill being named "Henry Ridge" by the researchers - for the repeating rifle used by the Indians!

>I believe some of the service rifles in use with our military have the three round burst feature.

Interesting - is this purely an "economizer" feature, or do they have the same capability to fire from the recoiling barrel? I admit that quite some time has passed since the G11 made its debut, maybe some of the technology it used has become common by now.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2008)

The 45 70 used by the US Cav in the Custer fight was a lot harder hitting and longer ranged than the 44 Henry used by Indians but the thirteen rounds in the Henry(I think) made them a lot handier in a fight up close and when the user was mounted. I believe also the breech loaders the Army had were having trouble with extracting the cases so that the troopers had to get out their pocket knives and that slowed the rate of fire. I was bemused in the movie "Dances With Wolves" when the hero was downing bison with one shot from a Henry. If memory serves the 44 Henry rimfire had ballistics similar to a 357 magnum pistol round. Good luck with a bison with one round.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 19, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>The 45 70 used by the US Cav in the Custer fight was a lot harder hitting and longer ranged than the 44 Henry used by Indians but the thirteen rounds in the Henry(I think) made them a lot handier in a fight up close and when the user was mounted. 

Interesting historic parallel to the later development of low-powered infantry weapons ... including "mounted" combat, if we count armoured personnel carriers!

>If memory serves the 44 Henry rimfire had ballistics similar to a 357 magnum pistol round. Good luck with a bison with one round.

LOL! You're right, probably as dangerous for the shooter as for the buffalo 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------

