Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SSK 6.5mm MPC
doggtag    8/12/2006 11:38:18 AM
For those interested in still trying resurrect a politically-sacrificed dead horse, SSK has come up with a new contender in the "5.56mm-just-won't-cut-it-anymore" debate. http://www.sskindustries.com/6_5mpc.htm>here it is courtesy of SSK's website The 6.5 MPC (Multi Purpose Cartridge) is a SSK development urged by Brian Hormberg (USMC) based on the 5.56 cartridge shortened and opened to 6.5 MM and the same OAL as the 5.56. In the M-16-AR-15 rifles it utilizes the 5.56 bolt and magazines as well as all other parts except the barrel itself. Its design adapts it to a short Close Quarter Battle rifle with a 12” barrel moving a 107 6.5 SMK at 2400 FPS with superior full auto controllability and excellent accuracy. The 12” barrel model easily puts it into the realistic 300+ yard combat category and longer barrels stretch that realistic combat range considerably further. Factory ammunition is not yet available for the 6.5 MPC; however we are working on that. Ready to load brass and dies are in stock. The 120 grain BT is near maximum bullet weight for good performance. 85 grain is about the least weight for good performance. Some 140 grain bullets may be used but ballistically are counterproductive. There is a good article in the latest (Summer 2006) Special Weapons For Military and Police magazine (by Stan Crist, pp 64-67 & p 89), $6.95 @ US newsstand price (displays until Nov 2006, so lots of time yet) http://www.special-weapons-magazine.com/>here's the magazine at its website, with additional ordering info and back issue information Now, this new round was developed to match the existing overall length of the 5.56mm ammunition, which it shares the same (albeit modified) case with, to still be able to fit all current 5.56mm hardware (magazines, belt-feed links, etc), with the only necessary change being a new barrel in this new caliber. It will match per-round capacity of all 5.56mm rounds (20 & 30 round clips, C-Mag 100 round drums, 200 round M249 cassettes, etc), the only difference being a slight weight increase (62-gr typical for 5.56 NATO vs 95-gr typical for 6.5 MPC) One of the oft-suggested more favorable replacements for the 5.56, the Remington 6.8mm SPC (which doesn't stack comparably in standard 5.56 magazines, allowing only 25 rounds instead of 30), compares as follows: keeping the same weight, it breaks down to: 5.56mm NATO- 10x30-rd mags = 300 rounds. 6.5mm MPC - 9x30-rd mags = 270 rounds. 6.8mm SPC - 7x25-rd mags = 175 rounds. Now the Remington 6.8mm SPC is said to offer the most superior performance in "5.56mm-compatible" hardware (can still use standard magazines, etc), while its closest competitor, the 6.5mm Grendell, has to have everything modified to accomodate its considerably-different cartridge profile (although offering much superior performance at extended ranges, with some suggestions putting its performance on par with 7.62mm NATO but in a smaller package). As for sheer round performance, p 89 of the magazine has a nice comparison chart, between the 5.56 62-gr NATO, 6.5 95-gr MPC and 6.8 115-gr SPC. At 200m range (within CQB), the 6.5 has more than 250 foot-lbs advantage (14.5" barrel) over the 5.56. At 500m range, the 6.5 still retains just shy of a 200 ft-lb advantage over the 5.56. Now, Stan Crist's article raises the issue that the round (6.5mm MPC) was designed with regards to field reports suggesting that 5.56 from 14.5" (and shorter, CQB) barrels was proving to lack the 5.56's potential it had from longer barrels which could exploit the high velecoity needed to make the round truly incapacitive (leading many to adopt the view that "controlled pairs" would overcome any definciencies on the single, lowered-velocity (when fired from shorter barrels) 5.56 ammunition. But that of course effectively reduces the number of engagements: what's the advantage of carrying 300 rounds when you can, by the "controlled pairs" book, only sustain 150 engagements?) There were numerous "official" suggestions/recommendations that the current 5.56mm NATO was proving "adequate" in current operations (with the higher-performance Mk262 round not being standard en-masse issue as compared to the typical 5.56 NATO.) But of course, this coming from the same administration who initially thought unarmored logistics vehicles and Humvess and troops lacking body armor would be sufficient and adequate-enough to complete the Iraq mission also. Now, we've all heard the arguments that "nobody wants to cough up the money to retool the most-commonly-used small arms ammunition/weapons in the midst of the current conflict." But SSK's new solution suggests only a barrel change (to the new caliber) is needed, with all other componenets of the M-4/M-16 AR family and M249 series LMG/SAW being fully compatible (gun loads, recoil stresses, ammo mags, etc). Now, there are reports from the field (bot
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
doggtag    RE:SSK 6.5mm MPC   8/14/2006 12:14:55 PM
Thanks, guys. Nice to see some of you do see the pros of it. Mostly, I like Yimmy's idea: When we fight these terrorists, be they in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Hague and Geneva conventions do not apply. Same goes for those Gitmo detainees: since by the book no established national military is claiming those detainees belong to them (certainly in an effort to keep their country's reputation as far from the War on Terror as possible, but certainly also to keep any US aid coming in that would be curtailed if said nation openly admitted it used terrorists and those detainees belonged to them), why should established international warfare conduct laws and regulations (and POW safety & treatment protocols) apply to them? From what I've read, those int'l agreements only pertain to treatment of civilians and nationally-uniformed combatants: terrorists and insurgents operating on their own beliefs, with no national flag to hide behind, are neither. Ergo, where do they get off demanding said protections, especially when their own terror-weilding brethren have repeatedly shown they won't hesitate to violate those same protocols they seek shelter behind once they are caught? Considering the magnitude of damage (and potential for collateral injuries) that current Laws-of-Land-Warfare-safe US ordnance can do, so what if we're using "questionable" small arms ammo? (Supposedly, you aren't supposed to intentionally shoot personnel with .50 & up, but we all know it happens.) Hell, if it means a guaranteed one-shot kill on some doped-up, possibly body-armored insurgent, I'd say use whatever fits inside the barrel, "legally compliant" or not (damn lawyers: like they would even survive on a battlefield anyway!). ...or perhaps, with better training with many of these latest optics, we start teaching our military personnel to aim for the head instead of center mass. Guaranteed there'll be little suffering there. Of course, that might imply building more DMR (designated marksman rifle) small arms, one thing the M8 family was offering, allowing a tad more range and precision than standard AR fare. But then, tactics suggest longer barrels compromise ability during CQB. Almost makes one wish the venerable Tommy Gun was still available (albeit tricked-out like most current ARs with composite this and that, better ammo, optics, etc). Heavy, yes. But a few rounds there guaranteed to stop someone. On the note of some posters here suggesting "the US government already looked into it, and saw no added benefit to merit the change to a new caliber", I wonder just how much "looking into it" any of those other calibers (6.5, 6.8, etc) got, as compared to just how much vindication 5.56 underwent during its promotional phase (with the added backing & request of a USAF general, no less). My guess is, these newer, more promising calibers got back-burnered and pushed aside (my aforementioned "politically sacrificed") all in the name of saving money as opposed to improving the troops' capabilities (and survival). Other than the magazine article I mentioned, and the brief on SSK's site, there hasn't been much info percolate into the news (internet, books, magazines) concerning this new round. But I think with enough time, it will surface more and more, as did the Rem 6.8 and 6.5 Gendell, and perhaps then enough supporters will be found to justify a fair and balanced, unbiased, shoot-off comparing the laurels of these newer rounds to the legacy-old stuff we're using now. But lately it seems, too often our military/government has become reactive instead of proactive: not planning ahead enough with all the small stuff, and only making any marginal/implemental changes after scores of lives are lost (again, I point to the whole body armor issue and uparmoring vehicles). We went into these latest conflicts with the assumption that our Cold War mentality would guarantee us victory, on the false pretense that our adversaries were most likely using ex-Russian equipment, and since we built our arsenal to counter those threats, we should easily be able to counter these latest trouble spots. 5 years later, we're still at a general stalemate: some say we're winning, but yet additional insurgent groups keep popping up. Perhaps that's partly because many of those insurgents have no respect for the killing power (lack thereof) of the commonplace 5.56mm ammunition? But how will things change when more US troops are suddenly fielding longer-ranged, heavier-hitting small arms and such, and terrorists start to realize that their cake walk is starting to end? Now, for those naysayers out there who think that "the caliber of your small arms doesn't win battles", given time any of us could probably find several dozen instances where more favorable calibers & better-engineered guns made all the difference. For anyone interested, I wholly recommend reading that Special Weapons For Military and Pol
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:SSK 6.5mm MPC   8/14/2006 1:57:04 PM
>>Ergo, why don't we bring back "dum dum" bullets? I am sure you could make a 5.56mm case vastly more leathel if you were to increase the weight to 62 grains, and make it a hollow point, with a hardened penetrator behind, keeping its armour piercing abilities to an extent.<< The US reading of the legalities on that is that JHP ammunition is legal for those units tasked with counter-terrorism missions while they are actively carrying out CT missions. Sadly, not even those units are supposed to use such ammunition for other combat operations, as I understand it, so, for instance, those same units would use the standard ball ammo as everyone else when downrange in Afghanistan or Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:SSK 6.5mm MPC   8/14/2006 2:12:02 PM
>>(Supposedly, you aren't supposed to intentionally shoot personnel with .50 & up, but we all know it happens.)<< Complete urban myth. >>On the note of some posters here suggesting "the US government already looked into it, and saw no added benefit to merit the change to a new caliber", I wonder just how much "looking into it" any of those other calibers (6.5, 6.8, etc) got, as compared to just how much vindication 5.56 underwent during its promotional phase (with the added backing & request of a USAF general, no less).<< Again, you can armchair theorize all you want. The reality is 5th SFG(A) took weapons chambered for those weapons downrange and used them in combat. USASOC and USASFC were quite keen on 6.8mm Rem SPC and the talk was that we were getting ready to start getting 6.8mm uppers and magazines . . . . . . until the combat test results came back in, and it turned out that 6.8mm did not represent much of an improvement, but did represent a smaller basic load of ammunition. >>My guess is, these newer, more promising calibers got back-burnered and pushed aside (my aforementioned "politically sacrificed") all in the name of saving money as opposed to improving the troops' capabilities (and survival).<< And, again, you can armchair theorize all you want. The reality was the will and the money was there to replace 5.56mm within USASOC. But, alas, 5.56mm works very well for killing folks and the replacements did not work much better. That's not "politics" that rational analysis and study. I'm sorry if the real world did not back up the armchair theory, but it happens. >>It's a sad fate for our fighting personel that the US government has clung to the 5.56 formula longer than any other small arms caliber (excluding John Browning's 12.7mm) simply on the grounds that it "performs adequately".<< Strange, then, isn't it, that 5.56mm is the industry standard for military organizations the world over who did not formerly get their kit from the communist bloc? If the round is so bad, then why does just about *everyone* not just the US, not just NATO, use it? And why is it the preferred round for Tier One units that could switch to 6.8mm Rem SPC, 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 MPC, "6mm Optimum" or cold-forged kryptonite thermonuclear rounds if they wanted to? Something does not add up . . . and I think the mathematical error is with the folks in the armchairs, not the folks in the arena. >>I think as more foreign militaries see the benefits of increased soldier protection (body armor systems), we're finally going to come to the reality that 5.56 just isn't going to cut it anymore (like how almost everyone else has abandoned 20mm in favor of something bigger, like 30mm+, where we're also lacking in keeping 25mm on our Bradleys, even though, like 5.56, it still "performs adequately enough").<< The US uses DU ammunition, most everyone else uses Tungsten. There's a rather large performance gap between the two. >>So my thoughts: finally sacrifice 5.56 and 7.62 for an intermediate 6.5-6.8: I'd prefer the 6.5 Grendell, as its performance with the proper load will match any 7.62 (including AP and those long range snipes that don't require 12.7mm rifles), yet with lighter weight and tamer recoil, for all ARs, DMRs, SAWs &LMGs, MMGs and coaxial weapons.<< It won't actually. Lighter bullets deliver less thump when it is all said and done. The 6.8mm round or 6.5 Grendel or whatever simply won't cut it as MMG rounds, even if they work pretty well in ARs (from personal experience) and should work pretty well for SAWs. >>My wonder is: if standard-fare frontline troops were allowed to attend the gun trade shows, make their own choices for weapons and caliber (and associated tactical gear), give them a genuine in-the-field trial with no political or admin/leadership pressure, how many of them would opt to stay with the "adequate" 5.56 catridge and the M16/M4 series ARs?<< The ones who read the gun rags, believe that everything on the internet is the gospel truth, and whose military responsibilities have little to do with actual combat would probably pick something different. The ones with actual combat tours as shooters likely would not. >>But at least these newer rounds (6.5 MPC & Grendell, 6.8 SPC) bring more energy & damage potential on the target. << And, consequently, bring more recoil and fewer rounds to the table. More recoil means slower follow up shots, which are the real key to reliably killing bad guys at close range. Fewer rounds means what it sounds like. Again, 5.56mm and the M16/M4 are not broken. Wasting money fixing problems that only exist for armchair theorists (Stanley Crist, Mike Sparks, etc.) is just a waste of time, energy, and resources best spent solving real problems.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Horsesoldier   8/14/2006 2:28:56 PM
That makes no sense. Afghanistan and Iraq are anti-terrorist operations so surely all of the American military can use the ammunition approved for anti-terrorism operations?
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:Horsesoldier   8/14/2006 4:27:38 PM
>>That makes no sense. Afghanistan and Iraq are anti-terrorist operations so surely all of the American military can use the ammunition approved for anti-terrorism operations?<< What you say makes sense to me . . . but my suspicion is that the political/media fall out of doing so would be excessive, and that's why it is not done. But, I think part of the rationale employed is that CT operations are classified in some manner as (military) law enforcement. US military police can use JHP ammunition when conducting law enforcement duties, like CT guys, but cannot use JHP on the battlefield. As rules and laws go, the whole issue is kind of . . . archaic and silly, in any case. You cannot use a dum-dum, hollow point, etc., round because it would tend to increase the suffering of the enemy. But you can use a round that derives much of its lethality from fragmentation after impact. You can even use a round that was deliberately designed to fragment on impact (i.e. German Army issue 7.62mm ammunition).
 
Quote    Reply

Bigbro    RE:Horsesoldier   8/16/2006 5:05:08 PM
http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm#art23 http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html I stand by the comment that a 62 gr. "matchking" is both legal and offers options to the people in the field. That said we should not be offering points that might cause a young pfc to have questions about his/her rifle and ammo. Mind set is critcal to these young people. As a note my H-bar AR 15 with a 4x scope is shooting under an inch at 100yds. This is with 55 gr. Blackhills and hand loads. With 55 gr. surplus ball it will only do about 4"s at that range. With optic sights the accuracy standards of issue ammo should be looked at. What good is having a rifle/sight combo that can hit at 400 meters if the ammo is only going to group into 12 inches at that range? The M16 system is a sound, if imperfect, system that gets the job done. Bb
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy    RE:Horsesoldier   8/16/2006 5:22:57 PM
Why would you need an assault rifle more accurate than able to achieve 12 inch groups at 400m's? Those shots will still land on a bad guys torso. Shooting standard issue ammo I can hit a figure 11 target 70-80% of the time at 500m's (using SUSAT), and those times I miss are due to me and the wind rather than the ammunition itself I am sure.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    RE:SSK 6.5mm MPC   8/16/2006 6:29:20 PM
http://civilwarclipart.com/Clipartgallery/images/awjeez_de.jpg> US Army said they will stick with 5.56 line. As for special forces, they are always in liberty to choose what they want to use.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman    RE:Horsesoldier   8/16/2006 6:36:03 PM
I have to admit, it was one of the things I liked about the LSW when I had the opportunity to be using them - very accurate. I still prefer the AR-series though!
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink    Lawman   8/16/2006 6:42:49 PM
Just curious, how do you rapid reload an LSW? As far as I know from internet rumors, British Army is buying L108A1s to "fill the gap" while using L86s as sharpshooting rifles.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics