US Army Next Generation rifle/support weapon

Some people are claiming the bullet is getting pushed back into the case when chambered, and some people are not. I don't think that the problem has been thoroughly figured out, people just know that guns are blowing up.

I would suggest that what's really needed is a new cartridge that won't do this.
Probably easier to design a magazine that won't accept the wrong round or fit in the wrong weapon. Then alter the magazine well.
 
Some people are claiming the bullet is getting pushed back into the case when chambered, and some people are not. I don't think that the problem has been thoroughly figured out, people just know that guns are blowing up.

I would suggest that what's really needed is a new cartridge that won't do this.
Well yes, if you are using a weapon chambered for 5.56 and manage to load .300 AAC and squeeze the trigger the results will not be pretty.

Blackout is just a 7.62 bullet necked down into a 5.56 cartridge.

But it is a better round than the pistol caliber SMG’s PDW’d which this weapon is designed to replace.
 
Some people are claiming the bullet is getting pushed back into the case when chambered, and some people are not. I don't think that the problem has been thoroughly figured out, people just know that guns are blowing up.

I would suggest that what's really needed is a new cartridge that won't do this.
Changing the cartridge would mean an action size change so it would have to have its own platform , a lot of research went into this calibre , they use the same mag as 5.56 otherwise they could have modified the magwell to stop interchanging.
If issue rounds were of a shape that couldn't allow the bolt in battery on a 5.56 chambre and the case was crimped stopping the bullet head going back in the case it would cure the problem in the services , what civilian shooters hand load can not be controlled.
 
Changing the cartridge would mean an action size change so it would have to have its own platform , a lot of research went into this calibre , they use the same mag as 5.56 otherwise they could have modified the magwell to stop interchanging.
If issue rounds were of a shape that couldn't allow the bolt in battery on a 5.56 chambre and the case was crimped stopping the bullet head going back in the case it would cure the problem in the services , what civilian shooters hand load can not be controlled.
I don't know exactly what they would have to change to fix the problem, but what they need to do is to make sure the round won't chamber so the out of battery safety would stop the rifle from firing.

At this point however I haven't seen a definitive analysis on how this is actually happening, or if there is more than one way to end up with this problem. Until someone does that we are just guessing at the problem and there can't really be a solution.

The French had a similar problem in the 1920s when they switched to 7.5mm. They found that 7.92mm would chamber and fire in the same firearms and the result was not good. They ended up making a small change to the length of the cartridge case to fix it.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
I don't know exactly what they would have to change to fix the problem, but what they need to do is to make sure the round won't chamber so the out of battery safety would stop the rifle from firing.

At this point however I haven't seen a definitive analysis on how this is actually happening, or if there is more than one way to end up with this problem. Until someone does that we are just guessing at the problem and there can't really be a solution.

The French had a similar problem in the 1920s when they switched to 7.5mm. They found that 7.92mm would chamber and fire in the same firearms and the result was not good. They ended up making a small change to the length of the cartridge case to fix it.
100% correct they created the Mle 1929 7.5x 54mm
The world’s mot advanced round at the time!
 
Probably easier to design a magazine that won't accept the wrong round or fit in the wrong weapon. Then alter the magazine well.
The whole point of 300 Blackout was to come up with something while avoiding new capital expenditure by re-using existing components, including magazines. Aside from the barrel the rifle uses all off the shelf existing parts. The round was developed by a small company without a big R&D or capital investment budget.

Another factor is the round skits some of the peculiarities of American firearms laws. With an AR style of rifle the controlled "firearm" is the lower part of the receiver because that's the part with the serial number. The rest is just "spare parts" which have la lower degree of control on them. The civilian market doesn't want something that changes the magazines or magazine wells.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Has anyone considered the ammo carriage yet? The mags look longer than the old M14 ones so no recycling of the old M1956 web gear!


I expect that some G4 bod has been burning the midnight oil over ancillary kit too
 
Has anyone considered the ammo carriage yet? The mags look longer than the old M14 ones so no recycling of the old M1956 web gear!


I expect that some G4 bod has been burning the midnight oil over ancillary kit too
I havent seen a M1956 Ammo pouch used since 1990 even in the Reserves. It's like asking if the Springfield cartridge belt will fit the magazines

m1923-cartridge-belt-usa-main.jpg
 

tiv

LE
As the chamber pressure of the new round requires a composite steel/brass case would it make sense to just use a steel case and done with it?

Apologies if this is a daft question.

 

TamH70

MIA
As the chamber pressure of the new round requires a composite steel/brass case would it make sense to just use a steel case and done with it?

Apologies if this is a daft question.

Steel cases are a bugger to reload and governments outside of the old Warsaw Pact - where most steel-cased ammunition comes from - are a bit tight like that.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
As the chamber pressure of the new round requires a composite steel/brass case would it make sense to just use a steel case and done with it?

Apologies if this is a daft question.

That means usually a change to the chamber with fluting being a popular choice
It also ruins reloading as a hobby
 
As the chamber pressure of the new round requires a composite steel/brass case would it make sense to just use a steel case and done with it?

Apologies if this is a daft question.
As reloading isn't a consideration for military ammunition, I suspect that the main reason for using a combination of brass and steel may be ease of manufacture in existing facilities.

Steel cartridge cases require more expensive tooling and more stages in the manufacturing process because steel is less malleable than brass. Steel is cheaper because of lower material costs, but the factory that makes the cases has to be set up to make them. The US tried to make steel cases on existing tooling and equipment (this was part of a previous attempt to make lighter ammunition) and had to give up on it as not feasible without completely rebuilding the case manufacturing plants.

A Canadian company designed an all stainless steel cartridge case for the US about 10 or so years ago as part of a previous weight saving project. It didn't go anywhere, possibly because it couldn't be made on existing equipment.

A cartridge case is made by taking a button of metal and stretching it out into a closed end tube in a press. Brass stretches and forms much more readily than steel, which is the main reason brass has always been used, although there are side benefits.

Doing this with steel requires high quality alloys and doing it a bit at a time in more stages, which makes the manufacturing equipment more expensive. It's only worth while if you equip and tool up a plant to make very large numbers of a specific cartridge. This is why only military ammunition has gone this route. It also has the strategic advantage that it doesn't use scarce metals such as copper and zinc in war time.

The early cartridges for the Snider used an iron base and wrapped brass body as at the time even deep drawing brass was difficult and expensive.
 
As reloading isn't a consideration for military ammunition, I suspect that the main reason for using a combination of brass and steel may be ease of manufacture in existing facilities.

Steel cartridge cases require more expensive tooling and more stages in the manufacturing process because steel is less malleable than brass. Steel is cheaper because of lower material costs, but the factory that makes the cases has to be set up to make them. The US tried to make steel cases on existing tooling and equipment (this was part of a previous attempt to make lighter ammunition) and had to give up on it as not feasible without completely rebuilding the case manufacturing plants.

A Canadian company designed an all stainless steel cartridge case for the US about 10 or so years ago as part of a previous weight saving project. It didn't go anywhere, possibly because it couldn't be made on existing equipment.

A cartridge case is made by taking a button of metal and stretching it out into a closed end tube in a press. Brass stretches and forms much more readily than steel, which is the main reason brass has always been used, although there are side benefits.

Doing this with steel requires high quality alloys and doing it a bit at a time in more stages, which makes the manufacturing equipment more expensive. It's only worth while if you equip and tool up a plant to make very large numbers of a specific cartridge. This is why only military ammunition has gone this route. It also has the strategic advantage that it doesn't use scarce metals such as copper and zinc in war time.

The early cartridges for the Snider used an iron base and wrapped brass body as at the time even deep drawing brass was difficult and expensive.
This is the only steel cased ammo I`ve seen for the civilian market , cheap as chips ...
1653597815326.png
 

tiv

LE
As reloading isn't a consideration for military ammunition, I suspect that the main reason for using a combination of brass and steel may be ease of manufacture in existing facilities.

Steel cartridge cases require more expensive tooling and more stages in the manufacturing process because steel is less malleable than brass. Steel is cheaper because of lower material costs, but the factory that makes the cases has to be set up to make them. The US tried to make steel cases on existing tooling and equipment (this was part of a previous attempt to make lighter ammunition) and had to give up on it as not feasible without completely rebuilding the case manufacturing plants.

A Canadian company designed an all stainless steel cartridge case for the US about 10 or so years ago as part of a previous weight saving project. It didn't go anywhere, possibly because it couldn't be made on existing equipment.

A cartridge case is made by taking a button of metal and stretching it out into a closed end tube in a press. Brass stretches and forms much more readily than steel, which is the main reason brass has always been used, although there are side benefits.

Doing this with steel requires high quality alloys and doing it a bit at a time in more stages, which makes the manufacturing equipment more expensive. It's only worth while if you equip and tool up a plant to make very large numbers of a specific cartridge. This is why only military ammunition has gone this route. It also has the strategic advantage that it doesn't use scarce metals such as copper and zinc in war time.

The early cartridges for the Snider used an iron base and wrapped brass body as at the time even deep drawing brass was difficult and expensive.
Thanks for the informative response.
 
The following is a good video on the new US rifle. It's informative and worth watching.

They mention near the beginning of the video that the military ammunition runs at a much higher pressure than the civilian ammunition currently on the market and hence have higher muzzle energy. They also said that different civilian rounds themselves run at different pressures. This may answer the questions raised earlier about why some videos seem to show shooters experiencing different degrees of recoil.

At the start of the video they say they will compare two types of civilian ammunition and some military ammunition they had, but I don't recall them actually doing it in the video.

Their conclusion is they like the rifle from the perspective of a civilian sport shooter. However, they said that the weight of the rifle and it's ammunition cause them to question its practicality as a standard infantry rifle. Rather, they see it as more suitable as a replacement for 7.62x51mm for snipers and marksmen.

 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top