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%.

KEWL 8-)

ehh.. what happens in the field? Ya know, rain, muck, sand, snow, ice... that's when it matters...

Picatinny is my neighbor, 6 miles through the woods. AND, one of our forum members works on this stuff...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

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.