bulpup 98 Posted July 23, 2010 http://www.military.com/news/article/new-ammo-slashes-machine-gun-weight.html?ESRC=eb.nl Picatinny Arsenal uses some old research to make a new M249 that shoots new ammo. Lighter by 50%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sirsloop 1 Posted July 23, 2010 ehh.. what happens in the field? Ya know, rain, muck, sand, snow, ice... that's when it matters... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old School 611 Posted July 23, 2010 Picatinny is my neighbor, 6 miles through the woods. AND, one of our forum members works on this stuff... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Krdshrk 3,882 Posted July 23, 2010 ehh.. what happens in the field? Ya know, rain, muck, sand, snow, ice... that's when it matters... Article says they're having troubles keeping the casing together in high heat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbk 188 Posted July 23, 2010 Very nice. I'm not in the field anymore, nor was I ever a SAW gunner, so I never had to deal with crazy combat loads (SOPs on combat loads vary from CO to CO). Because of that, I would still take lethality over weight in the current operations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theRU 33 Posted July 23, 2010 obviously its not fully developed yet..but it all has to start somewhere. Imagine if we dropped the cellphone idea because at first they were too big and clunky. Plus..i'm pretty sure the military is thinking.. if we can reduce the weight by 50%, we can double the amount of ammo they carry. Lol now that is lethality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bbk 188 Posted July 23, 2010 The weight issue has been remedied by a lot of other means. Combat loads use to be 100-150lbs+, but because of recent technology innovations, the combat load has dropped to as low as 70. Even though SOPs differ from command to command, it use to be anywhere from 240-300 rounds for a rifleman. These days, and currently from what my buds have told me, the load has been reduced to as low as 120 (these numbers are not exact as most everything is mission-specific). So, weight hasn't been a huge issue for boots on the ground. Maybe its an issue to the brass who see these figures on paper who, in turn, bring it up at briefs, who convince the government committees to put out contracts. But for boots on the ground, I'll take lethality over excessive weight (because that's what it would end up being). Give me a SCAR 17 (7.62 NATO ver.) with 120 rounds instead of an M4/M16/Mk18 with 400 rounds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CPRPE 4 Posted July 23, 2010 How about the cost savings for transport? That's probably a big prtion of the impetus for this. Imagine cutting the weight of hundreds of thousands of rounds that have to be flown in... But I agree... Give me lethality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fishpaw 17 Posted July 24, 2010 There was some commercially made plastic cased ammo a few years ago. I remember seeing it in 223. Its called PCA by Natec, and didnt get very good reviews. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bulpup 98 Posted July 24, 2010 i'm pretty sure the military is thinking.. if we can reduce the weight by 50%, we can double the amount of ammo they carry. :laughing-rofl: tru dat Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bulpup 98 Posted July 24, 2010 How about the cost savings for transport? That's probably a big prtion of the impetus for this. Imagine cutting the weight of hundreds of thousands of rounds that have to be flown in... But I agree... Give me lethality. You may be right, but, consider that for the grunt the load out is carried in the spine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites