The Case for a General-Purpose Rifle and Machine Gun Cartridge (GPC)

Anthony G Williams
This is a revised and extended compilation of several presentations, including to: the National Defense Industries Association (NDIA) Joint Armaments Conference in Dallas, a! "#$#% the Defence I& Infantr! 'eapons Conference in (ondon, )eptem*er "#$#% and the )mall Arms and Cannons )!mposium at the +, Defence Academ!, August "#$")elected slides from the .o/er.oint presentations are included: the full set of NDIA slides is availa*le on their /e*site 0121 (ast amended T ! A"G A# !$P!R%!#C! The conflict in Afghanistan, with its emphasis on targeting specific enemy individuals while avoiding collateral damage, has demanded the use of weapons of high precision and limited destructive effect. As a result, infantry small arms acquired a much more prominent role than that expected in conventional high-intensity warfare and this highlighted the performance of their ammunition to a greater extent than ever before. Now that several NATO nations have started the process of defining their requirements for the next generation of small arms, this is a rare opportunity to as the question! is the present combination of "."# and $.#% mm rifle and machine gun cartridges optimal, or could we do better in the next generation& The 'ritish Army analysed several hundred small-arms engagements in Afghanistan during the late %(((s. The results are thought-provo ing. )ver since *orld *ar % around +(( metres has been regarded as the normal maximum range for small-arms engagements, but this has not been the case in Afghanistan where ranges have been much longer. Apart from the ubiquitous and rather short-ranged A,- carbines, the Taliban are equipped with .,- light machine guns and /01 sniper rifles chambered in the old but powerful $.#% x "23 3ussian cartridge, and more than half of their attac s were launched from ranges of between +(( and 4(( metres. As the fighting progressed there were indications that the engagement ranges in Afghanistan if anything became longer! T %& article in the American 3ifleman states that! "U.S. Army data....reveals that more than half of the wars small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive". The reason for this seems to have been connected with the limited range of the "."# mm weapons being carried by most 5/A6 forces. arch "#$3

PR'()!M& W%T

*+*,mm AMM-#%T%'#

'ritish foot patrols were initially equipped only with "."# guns7 the 89"A% rifle, 89#A% 8ight /upport *eapon, and 8::(A: -inimi .ara light machine gun. /imilarly, ;/ troops were primarily armed with the -2 <arbine =Army> or -:#A2 rifle =;/-<> plus the -%24 8-? =-inimi>. These all fire the standard NATO ball ammunition, designated //:(4 =-9"" in ;/ service>. @owever, this ammunition has proved inadequate at long range. *hatever performance they may demonstrate on a firing range, a combination of battle experience and the testing of ammunition terminal effectiveness has led to a Audgment that weapons with the "(( mm =c.%( inch> barrels the ammunition was designed for are effective only up to about +(( metres. *eapons with shorter barrels, such as the -2 and the -inimi .ara, have reduced ballistics resulting in an even shorter effective range. *hat this means is that more than half the small-arms engagements ta e place beyond the effective range of the standard 'ritish infantry rifle, and about $(B of the engagements are beyond the effective range of shortbarrelled carbines li e the -2. The second problem with "."# ammunition is its lac of suppressive effect, which is what most long-range small-arms fire is used for. On most occasions when 'ritish foot patrols came under fire, they never saw their attac ers7 the Taliban are s illed at selecting concealed positions for ambush. /o the soldiers returned fire in the general direction of the enemy in the hope of pinning them down long enough for heavier weapons to be brought to bear. 6ield testing has revealed that the suppressive effect of a small-arms bullet is directly proportional to the loudness of the sonic bang it generates, and in turn that is directly proportional to its siCe and of course to how close the bullets pass by. "."# bullets have only about half the suppressive radius of $.#% fire, exacerbated by the fact that the little bullets are more affected by wind drift and therefore less li ely to get close to the target at long range. This is supported by battlefield reports that the Taliban ta e little notice of "."# suppressive fire. This lac of effective range and suppressive effect are the two maAor concerns with "."# ammunition which have been reported by the 'ritish Army, but there have also been complaints about two other issues which have long been highlighted in the ;/A and widely reported! erratic terminal effectiveness, even within its effective range, and poor barrier penetration. )rratic terminal effectiveness is mainly due to the fact that, while the -9"" bullet is capable of inflicting incapacitating inAuries at shorter ranges, it frequently does not yaw rapidly on impact but may instead pass through most of the body point-first. *hen this happens, it will inflict a relatively minor inAury unless it hits a vital organ. There is anecdotal evidence aplenty of erratic effectiveness in combat =for example in an article in early %(:: in the 3oyal -arinesD magaCine, 4lo*e and (aurel, which commented that it could ta e up to :" hits to stop an attac er at close range>, and this has been confirmed by laboratory testing, which reveals that 9"B of the bullets do not start to yaw until they have penetrated at least :%( mm - which could ta e them most of the way through a body. *hile no small-arms cartridge is effective :((B of the time, the general consensus of those with combat experience with both "."# mm and $.#% mm rifles seems to be that on average about twice as many "."# mm hits are required to cause rapid incapacitation. .roblems with penetrating intermediate barriers such as walls or car doors and even windscreens have also been confirmed in laboratory testing. T %& %((9 presentation by 1r 3oberts detailed these problems and illustrated the

results of laboratory testing. The commander of the ?erman troops in Afghanistan made similar complaints in %((4 about the poor effectiveness and barrier penetration of "."# mm ammunition. 5nterestingly, the 'ritish Army adopted a semi-automatic shotgun to provide more reliable close-range effectiveness than "."# weapons. A %((4 analysis by -aAor Thomas .. )hrhart, ;nited /tates Army, of the performance of ;/ Army small arms in Afghanistan ma es similar points to the 'ritish studies concerning typical engagement ranges and the limited effective range of "."# mm weapons, and also stresses the importance of mar smanship training. 5n %(:( the ;/ ArmyDs /oldier *eapons Assessment Team carried out interviews with soldiers in theatre to discover any issues. The need for their carbines to be effective beyond "(( metres was one of the ey requests from troops. The $.#% -:2 )nhanced 'attle 3ifle is proving so popular that the troops want it to be an organic part of squad equipment. And the $.#% mm -,29 light machine gun is increasingly being carried instead of the "."# -%24! as the Team put it7 "lethality trumps weight reduction when e tended ranges are re!uired". Not everyone agrees that "."#mm weapons have such a short effective range. /ome proponents argue that in good conditions they can be effective to "(( m in the hands of welltrained soldiers - although the ballistic graphs later in this article demonstrate that they will have a much harder Aob hitting targets, or getting close enough for suppressive effect, than with larger-calibre weapons.

These shortcomings mean that 'ritish foot patrols started carrying $.#% mm weapons in place of some of their "."# guns7 the very effective 8$A% ?.-? =similar to the ;/ ArmyDs -%2(> and the new 8:%4A: sharpshooter rifle, of which several hundred were purchased from %(:( as an ;rgent Operational 3equirement specifically to overcome the lac of range of "."# mm weapons. The problem with the ?.-? is that both the gun and its ammunition are very heavy7 most unwelcome given that reducing the burden of around #( g =:+% lbs> worn and borne by the infantryman in patrol order is one of the top equipment priorities of the 'ritish Army. The Army at one time planned to follow the ;/ lead in adopting lighter $.#% mm machine guns the $.#% mm version of the 6N -5N5-5 having been selected - to match the characteristics of the 3ussian .,-, although in the event these have only be acquired for special forces. 8ittle can be done for now about the weight of the ammunition, however7 a ey issue with belt-fed machine guns. ;/ forces recently adopted new "."# mm ammunition with the aim of replacing the -9"". 5n mid-%(:( the ;/ Army started to field the -9""A: ).3 =)nhanced .erformance 3ound, previously nown as the 86/ - 8ead 6ree /lug>, while the ;/-< selected in early %(:( the -,+:9 -od ( /O/T =/pecial Operations /cience E Technology>. 'oth rounds are claimed to offer better performance from short-barrelled carbines, improved barrier penetration and more reliable terminal effectiveness. The -9""A: also penetrates more armour and contains no lead. 5nitial indications are that while the ;/-< is happy with the more consistent effectiveness of the -,+:9, the high-pressure -9""A: is causing some problems concerning barrel wear and gun life! the 5ndividual <arbine competition held by the ;/ Army in %(:+ was abandoned when none of the competing guns was able to meet the ArmyDs reliability

requirements when using the -9""A: ammunition. )ven if these new rounds do resolve the -9""Ds penetration and effectiveness issues, their exterior ballistics are not good enough to eliminate the need for larger-calibre small arms to cover the longer ranges, and in any case they may not be acceptable to )uropean nations, as we shall see. T ! .G')" (AG. APPR'AC / A M%$ '" *+*,mm A#0 1+,2mm W!AP'#&

That brings us up to date. $.#% mm guns are being used much more widely, although their ammunition is big and heavy and generates nearly four times as much free recoil energy as "."# mm. @eavy recoil in a rifle ma es it more difficult to train recruits, reduces accuracy, slows down rapid semi-automatic fire and ma es fully automatic fire virtually uncontrollable. 5 have tried the $.#% 6N /<A3-@ currently being acquired by the ;/ /pecial Operations <ommand and recoil is sharp even in semi-auto fire! 5 was told by a soldier with extensive small-arms experience that only the first round of an automatic burst was li ely to hit the target. 'ut the $.#% gets the Aob done, so do we really need a new cartridge& The $.#% weapons can deal with the long-range wor , with "."# carbines retained for short-range fighting. One problem with this is that it may not be possible to draw neat lines around scenarios! a patrol may be clearing houses in a village at one moment then come under long-range fire as they leave. 5t means that those carrying $.#% weapons will be less well equipped for the close-quarter battle, while those with "."# guns will be unable to participate effectively in long-range engagements or even to pass their ammunition over to those with $.#% guns, thereby reducing the effective firepower of the section. 6inally, it still leaves us with the $.#%Ds weight and recoil, plus the erratic terminal effectiveness and poor barrier penetration of the "."# -9"". 6urthermore, the sudden proliferation of new small arms has increased the total number of portable rifles and -?s in the 'ritish section to five =not including sniper and special forces

rifles>! the three original "."# guns and two $.#% ones! the 8:%4A: and 8$A%. )ven worse, the ;/ Army and -arine <orps use eight between them! four in each calibre =-2, -:#, -%$ and -%24 in "."#7 -:2)'3, -::(, -%2( and -,29 in $.#%>. This proliferation of weapons has obvious practical disadvantages in terms of procurement, training and maintenance. The evidence presented below suggests that it is possible to meet military requirements with a much smaller number of weapons. The ey to this is the ammunition. M%)%TAR3 CARTR%0G! R!4-%R!M!#T& The performance of the ammunition determines the potential of the weapon. /o the design of future rifles or machine guns should start by defining the required terminal effects of a bullet against soft and hard targets out to a specified range =bearing in mind the li ely growth in the use of body armour by potential opponents>, and the exterior ballistics out to the maximum range for effective suppressive fire, in terms of the bulletDs traAectory, susceptibility to wind drift and remaining velocity. Add in the expected barrel length and that provides most of the factors controlling the cartridge design. The gun should then be designed around the cartridge. ThatDs the logical priority order anyway, although in practice it it doesnDt usually happen that way - as demonstrated by the recent ;/ 5ndividual <arbine competition, which was theoretically open to calibres other than "."# mm, but in reality was not. ?un designers tend to be stuc with existing cartridges even though far greater improvements in capability could be achieved by changing the ammunition than by changing the guns. 8et us first consider what we want infantry rifles and light machine guns to achieve. 5 suggest the following! "irst, their bullets should be capable of reliably inflicting sufficiently serious wounds to provide a high probability of an enemy being rapidly incapacitated by a centre-mass =torso> hit, within the effective range of the weapon and allowing for the current preference in many armies for short-barrelled carbines. &econdly, their bullets should be capable of penetrating a wide range of intermediate barriers while still maintaining their traAectory afterwards7 whatDs nown as Fbarrier blindF. Thirdly, sharpshooter rifles and 8-?s should have the effective range to at least match an enemy using full-power $.#% weapons, since these are in widespread use and li ely to remain so. "inally, the weapons and their ammunition should have the lightest weight and lowest recoil consistent with the first three requirements. These requirements are all essentially dependent on the right choice of ammunition. The first three can clearly be met by the $.#% cartridge but this falls down badly on the fourth. The "."# round delivers the opposite results. APPR'AC !& "'R M!!T%#G T ! R!4-%R!M!#T&

There are several possible approaches! 5+ 3etain the "."# and $.#%, but introduce an improved "."# loading. 2+ 3eturn to using the $.#% in all weapons, preferably with an improved loading. 6+ 3eplace the "."# with a more effective short to medium range cartridge, retaining the $.#% in sharpshooter rifles and -?s. 7+ 3eplace both existing rounds in the dismounted infantry section with one new general purpose cartridge =?.<> with good long-range performance. The pros and cons of these options can be summarised as follows! 'ption 5/ 0arious attempts have been and continue to be made to upgrade the performance of the "."# mm cartridge7 in ;/ service we have seen the -,%#% and now the -,+:9 -od ( and the -9""A:, and these all offer some improvements in performance. These new rounds may mitigate to some degree the -9""Ds penetration and effectiveness problems, but their exterior ballistics are not good enough to eliminate the need for larger-calibre small arms to cover the longer ranges. 5n any case, the degree of improvement is fundamentally limited by the small siCe and modest power of the cartridge. 5tDs worth remembering that in many ;/ states and in the ;,, the "."# cartridge is considered insufficiently powerful to hunt anything other than small game, even when loaded with the more effective expanding bullets which are banned for military use. 6urthermore, the -,%#% and -,+:9 have open-point bullets, which are regarded as unacceptable by the 'ritish and other )uropean countries, for reasons which are worth a short digression. 1eclaration 555 of the :944 @ague <onvention, states that! ""he #ontracting $arties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which e pand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions". ;/ lawyers argue that the bullets are not designed to expand, so the clause does not apply7 )uropean lawyers point to the specific wording which prohibits Aac ets which do not entirely cover the core =leaving aside the fact that the base of nearly all military rifle bullets is not covered by the Aac et anyway - the wording of @ague is rather sloppy>. The -9""A: bullet also has a Aac et which does not cover the steel tip, which is exposed. *hatDs more, li e the -9"" the -9""A: appears to rely on bullet fragmentation to maximise its soft-target effectiveness =it fragments to lower impact velocities, i.e. at longer ranges> which is also regarded as unacceptable by ;, lawyers because of the rather vague wording of the ?eneva <onventions which prohibits the use of "weapons, pro%ectiles and material and methods of war of a nature to cause superfluous in%ury or unnecessary suffering" . The ;, -anual of the 8aw of Armed <onflict =-inistry of 1efence, %((2> states in its chapter on weapons! &t is prohibited to use in international armed conflicts "bullets which e pand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions. "his prohibition is aimed at soft'nosed bullets that mushroom on impact or bullets whose casing is designed to fragment on impact causing, in either case, unnecessarily serious in%uries". The original 'ritish 8%A: "."#mm ball bullet did fragment in a similar way to

the -9"", but this was made less li ely in the 8%A% and subsequent patterns by using a thic er Aac et. As a result of all this, the ;/ rounds are very unli ely to be approved as NATO standards, although they may of course be adopted by individual NATO nations depending on the particular interpretation of international law which they accept. 5t also seems unli ely that the 'ritish lead-free "."# round currently being developed by 'A), which has a steel core, will offer the effectiveness improvements claimed for the -9""A: =it is intended only to match the effectiveness of the //:(4G-9"">. 'ption 2/ The $.#% -9( =the standard NATO ball round> is an old design which is effective but not very efficient. 5t is not efficient for two reasons. 6irst, because the bullet does not usually yaw very rapidly on impact. /econd, it has an unimpressive long-range performance for its calibre due to the poor aerodynamics of the bullet which sheds velocity quite quic ly. 5t is effective simply through the siCe and power of the bullet which delivers considerable terminal effectiveness and barrier penetration, but that power has a serious cost in weight and recoil. /ome improvements could be made by introducing a more modern and efficient loading, but apart from sniper loadings the only one to emerge so far - the new -,+:4 - also relies on an open-point bullet. The ;/ Army plans to introduce in the near future an -9(A: using a leadfree bullet which is basically a scaled-up version of the -9""A:, so that will also feature an unAac eted steel tip. These will also do little or nothing to mitigate the weight and recoil issues. 5n the longer term there may be the possibility of using a combination of a significantly lighter but better-shaped lead-free bullet which matches the ballistics of the existing -9(, in combination with a mostly polymer case. /uch a case would not only reduce weight considerably, but could be moulded around the bullet, enabling the use of a more tapered, long-nosed shape in the interests of aerodynamics. /uch a reduction in weight =and to a lesser extent recoil> would be very attractive and could be usable in existing weapons. @owever, such technologies have yet to be proved, and these weight saving methods could of course be applied to any calibre. 'ption 6/ To achieve a worthwhile performance increase over the "."# it is necessary to move to a larger calibre with increased case capacity. There will be some penalties in the form of increased weight and recoil, but these can be considerably less than the figures for the $.#%. The most thorough recent attempt emerged a few years ago as a Aoint effort between 3emington and some soldiers within /O<O-7 the #.9 x 2+ 3emington /pecial .urpose <artridge, or /.<. -uCCle energy and ammunition weight are half-way between the "."# and $.#%. Tests indicate that its terminal effectiveness and barrier penetration are very impressive, albeit achieved with an open-point bullet. 5n comparative shooting tests =courtesy of @ec ler E ,och> 5 found that the additional recoil appears to be quite modest, feeling much closer to the "."# than it does to the $.#%, despite the fact that the @,2:#G#.9 is lighter than the big @,2:$. @owever, the long-range performance, while better than the "."#, is not good enough to replace the $.#% as it is limited by the relatively short and light bullet needed to eep the overall length the same as the "."#mm. The #.9 mm 3em has achieved service status, being adopted for certain guard units first by Hordan and then =much more significantly in terms of numbers> by /audia Arabia. @owever, the special loading developed for /audi Arabia uses an even lighter bullet optimised for use in short-barrelled carbines and is only intended to be effective within about +(( m.

Another option for improving on the performance of the "."# mm are the almost identical .+(( *hisperG'lac out rounds based on the "."# mm case, but in their supersonic loadings these do little more than replicate the ballistic performance of the 3ussian $.#% x +4 -:42+ cartridge in a smaller pac age. 'ption 7/ This option is based on the fact that once you are in the siCe and performance class of the #.9 3emington, the right choice of calibre and - especially - bullet can in theory match the long-range performance of the $.#% -9( with a much lower ammunition weight and recoil. This therefore opens the possibility of one common general-purpose cartridge =?.<> used by the weapons carried by the dismounted infantry section. *hile the extra range would initially benefit sharpshooters and 8-?s and may not be needed in assault rifles, it does give them the potential for delivering long-range suppressing fire given the increasing use of telescopic sights and bipods, provided of course that appropriate training is given. 6urthermore, advanced sights currently under development =incorporating laser rangefinders and ballistic computers> could enable all riflemen to fire more effectively at long range. 5f a single ?.< could be achieved, the benefits resulting from all of the weapons within the squadGsection being suited to use at all combat ranges and being able to share ammunition, plus the simplification of weapon and ammunition acquisition, logistics and training would, 5 suggest, ma e this the most attractive option. AMM-#%T%'# %&T'R3 - W! #!AR)3 MA0! %T TW%C! (!"'R!8

5t is worth ta ing a brief loo at what we can learn from cartridges developed in the past, before considering the specifications which could deliver Option 2. One of the early small-calibre cartridges was the Hapanese #." mm Arisa a. *hen introduced in the late :4th century it had a round-nosed bullet but from :4(" the pointed-bullet Type +9 loading was introduced, and this remained in service until :42". 5t was recognised to be an impressive performer, with terminal effectiveness comparable with the later $.$ mm -? round. 5t developed a muCCle energy of %,"4( Houles =:,4%( ft lbs>, a figure worth remembering. The ;/ Army came close to adopting a reduced power, general-purpose cartridge eight decades ago. 6ollowing exhaustive testing by the ArmyDs <aliber 'oard, the .+(D(# round was very nearly replaced in the :4+(s by the .%$# .edersen, which developed %,+4( H of muCCle energy. The 'ritish were very interested in this cartridge and even established an ammunition production line =the example in the photo below was made in )ngland> but it was reAected by the ;/ Army mainly on cost grounds, because of the large stoc s of .+(D(# ammunition. The next attempt too place in the years following *orld *ar % during the trials to select NATODs first standard rifle and machine gun cartridge. As a result of **% experience there was a strong wish in both the ;/ and 'ritish armies to adopt one general-purpose selectivefire rifle to replace the proliferation of weapons in service. The 'ritish wanted a rifle compact and controllable enough in automatic fire to replace sub-machine guns as well as the .+(+ rifle, the Americans wanted one which would replace their -: ?arand rifle, -% <arbine, 'rowning Automatic 3ifle and -+ sub-machine gun. 6or the NATO tests 'ritain submitted a new reduced-power $mm round co-developed with 'elgium and supported by <anada.

0arious designations were used as it developed, starting with the .%$#, then the .%9(, the . %9(G+( and finally the $mm - :I, although it is now often referred to as the $ x 2+. This used a long, heavy bullet which lost velocity more slowly than the $.#%Ds, enabling it to deliver more energy at long range despite a lower muCCle energy =initially c.%,2"( H> with less weight and recoil. The 'ritish designed the )--% bullpup rifle around this cartridge in order to achieve the short gun needed for urban fighting combined with the long barrel needed for long-range fire. This combination was compact and controllable enough to replace submachine guns as well as the old .+(+ rifles. 5t was, for a time, officially adopted by the 'ritish Army. @owever, this had to be cancelled when the ;/ Army insisted on their new .+( calibre cartridge which was duly adopted as the $.#% NATO. ;nfortunately, at +,%((-+,2(( H this is Aust as powerful as the old full-power rifleG-? rounds which had seen service in both *orld *ars and, as we have seen, generates so much recoil that effective automatic rifle fire proved impossible. The -:2 rifle in this calibre was therefore only able to replace one of the four weapons it was intended to! the -: ?arand rifle, over which it was only a modest improvement.

There have since been other attempts at a new cartridge, intermediate in power between the "."#mm and the $.#%mm. The 'ritish developed an interesting #.%"mm cartridge around :4$(, but this was not designed for very long range and used a relatively light bullet. A more promising approach is the #." x 2(, a recent private venture by -itch /hoffner, which is basically a #.9 mm 3em nec ed-down to the smaller calibre and shortened to allow the use of long, aerodynamic bullets while still being compatible with "."# mm actions. *hile this is not powerful enough to replace the $.#% x ":, its long-range performance would probably be good enough to ma e the carrying of $.#% mm weapons by dismounted troops normally unnecessary. Another recent private-venture experimental round is the $ x 2# ;5A< by <ris -urray, which is in effect a lengthened and nec ed-out #." mm ?rendel. Thishas plenty of performance, but may be too close to the $.#% mm to stand much chance of adoption. The other two shown in the slide above are particularly relevant because they achieved a good long-range performance from a small cartridge by using a heavy bullet at a medium velocity. One was a ;/ Army proAect from around :4$(7 the # x 2", for use in a squad automatic weapon. This was intended to provide superior long-range performance to the "."# but was abandoned when improved "."# ammunition was promised. *ell, this eventually arrived as the -9"". The most recent production round to deliver high energy to long range by firing a heavy, reduced calibre bullet at a moderate muCCle velocity is the #."mm ?rendel from Alexander Arms =#." x +9>.

8etDs loo at how the two most recent intermediate-power cartridges perform compared with the service rounds. This chart of bullet energy at different ranges compares the $.#% with the "."#, the #.9 3emington and the #." ?rendel. 'oth the 3emington and the ?rendel rounds can develop up to %,"(( H muCCle energy - very similar to the #."mm Arisa a, the .%$# .edersen and the $ x 2+.

Two things are obvious! first, that the initial performance gaps between the "."# and the #.9, and between the #.9 and the $.#%, become steadily wider with increasing range. The second point is that the #." performs differently7 while starting with a muCCle energy similar to the #.9, its longer, thinner and more aerodynamic bullet allows it to match the $.#% at long range. 5t also offers a flatter traAectory and much less wind drift despite its lower muCCle velocity, as demonstrated in the graphs below. The four rounds are shown together here with their bullets. Note that the design of both the #.9 and the #." was constrained by having to fit within a converted A3-:", so the total length had to be the same as the "."#. This prevents the #.9 from using long bullets with good long-range performance. *ith a new calibre and family of weapons, this need not be a constraint. T ! PR'()!M '" (-))!T MAT!R%A)& One important reservation concerning the impressive performance of the ?rendel is that these results were obtained with the use of a low-drag, lead-cored target bullet. The ;/ Army has since chosen to develop lead-free small-arms bullets to minimise the ris of environmental pollution on practice ranges7 the -9""A: ).3 is the first, but a $.#%mm equivalent is planned to enter service in %(:2G:". Other nations generally accept, however reluctantly, that they will eventually have to follow suit as far as ball ammunition is concerned, although lead-cored bullets may well be retained for special purposes li e sniping, for which

ammunition expenditure is extremely low. Therefore a ?.< must be able to deliver results with lead-free bullets7 but it is very difficult to match the performance of a lead-cored target bullet with a mass-produced lead-free military ball round, as we shall see, and this indicates that the ?rendel may be Aust too small to do the Aob required. There are three alternative metals to lead commonly found in bullet cores! steel, copper and tungsten. Of these, tungsten is the only one which is more dense than lead =:$(B of the density> but is reserved for armour-piercing ammunition because of its high cost =%( times as much as lead>. 5n any case, all heavy metals tend to be toxic to some degree, so there would be little environmental improvement from using it. /o in effect mass-produced lead-free bullets are limited to copper =or copper alloy, such as brass> and steel. <opper has 9(B of the density of lead but is about four times the price7 steel has $(B of the density but is only a quarter of the price =although specially hardened alloys to improve penetration will be costlier>. -achine-turned solid brass bullets are often used in very low drag designs for longrange target shooting as they can be made with great precision, but they are costly in materials and manufacturing and do not penetrate armour as well as hardened steel. /o for the ).3, the ;/ Army selected a large hardened-steel penetrator in the nose bac ed up by a copper slug, the two held together with a copper-alloy semi-Aac et. This is replacing the -9"", which has a smaller steel penetrator in the tip of an otherwise conventional lead core, with a Aac et covering the lot. The standard NATO $.#%mm ball round, the -9(, Aust has a Aac eted lead core. The lower density of copper and steel means that to achieve a given weight, they need to be longer than bullets with lead =or mostly lead> cores of the same calibre. Assuming that a bullet is "(G"( copperGsteel by volume, then its overall density and therefore mass will be only about $"B of that of a bullet of the same siCe and shape with a plain lead core =it isnDt quite as simple of that, because lead-cored bullets have Aac ets of a different material - copper alloy or steel - but 5Dll ignore that to avoid undue complication>. This means that to bring the mass up to the same as the lead-cored version the bullet must increase in volume by something li e +(B7 which in any given calibre, means it must increase in length by about that much. This potentially causes two problems! pac aging the ammunition, and stabilising the bullet. 6or an existing cartridge, in which there is usually no room to have the bullet protruding further from the case without exceeding the limits on overall cartridge length =above which the ammunition may not fit into the gun actions or magaCines>, it is necessary for the lead-free bullet to extend more deeply into the case, reducing the space for propellant. ;nless a more volume-efficient propellant with the right pressure characteristics can be found, this means that the muCCle velocity and energy achieved at any given chamber pressure will be reduced. 'ullet stabilisation depends on the relationship between its lengthGdiameter ratio =8G1> and the barrel rifling twist. 5n any given calibre, the longer the bullet, the tighter the rifling twist needs to be. 5n practice, there is a limit in the 8G1 of about #!:, beyond which stabilisation by rifling is no longer feasible =e.g. a calibre # mm bullet cannot exceed +# mm in length7 in fact, standard military bullets typically have 8G1s of around 2!:>. *hich is why long, thin, discarding-sabot proAectiles are stabilised by fins at the end and are preferably fired from smooth-bored guns. Of the bullets shown above, the performance champion is the #."mm ?rendelDs :%+ grain =9

gram> 8apua /cenar, which has a purely lead core. 5t is good because of its long thin shape, but this means it already has an 8G1 of about 2."!:. Adding +(B to its +( mm length would bring this up to about +4 mm, with an 8G1 of ".9!: - extremely close to the absolute limit and requiring the tightest possible rifling twist. 'earing in mind that any military machine gun ammunition must include tracer bullets and these are almost invariably longer than the ball bullets =as their chemical contents are much less dense than core metals>, this is simply too long. The extra 4 mm of length would also have to be pac aged somehow. 5n practice, around $ grams =:(9 grains> is probably around the maximum feasible in #." mm calibre for a copperJsteel ).3 bullet. This will be about +2 mm long, giving an 8G1 ratio of about "!:. Hust about acceptable, although probably too long for the ?rendel, which is why 5 said it is Aust too small for a ?.<. 5t also means that the lighter ).3-type bullet will not match the ballistic performance of the 9 gram lead-cored bullet, as 5 will illustrate later. 5ncidentally, the smaller the calibre, the harder it becomes to achieve a low-drag bullet in leadfree materials. The best ballistic performer of the "."# mm loadings to have seen military service, the -,%#%, uses a lead-cored target bullet weighing $$ grains =" grams>. This is %" mm long, giving an 8G1 ratio of 2.2!:. An ).3 bullet of the same weight would be around +%." mm long, giving an 8G1 of ".$!: - too long, once tracer bullets are added. Ket the -,%#%, although a very good performer by "."#mm standards, doesnDt even match the $.#% mm -9( in its ballistic performance =it has a slightly worse ?$ ballistic coefficient of .:4( - see below> and, as we have seen, the -9( is a very mediocre performer compared with the ?rendel. C ARACT!R%&T%C& '" G!#!RA) P-RP'&! CARTR%0G!& Ta ing all of these issues into account, it is possible to draw up the characteristics of cartridges to meet the requirements. The calibre could be anywhere between # mm and $ mm, although at the smaller end of the scale designers may struggle to provide a worthwhile improvement over the "."# mm =especially with lead-free bullets>, while at the larger end the problem will be a weight and recoil which may be too close to the $.#% mm to be worth the cost of changing. /ome useful pointers emerged from some practical tests carried out by the ;/ ArmyDs A31)< =Armament 3esearch, 1evelopment and )ngineering <enter> /mall <aliber -unitions Technology 'ranch to determine the optimum calibre for a military rifle, with the results emerging in -arch %(::. A wide range of criteria were examined including! penetration7 terminal effectiveness7 accuracy7 initial, retained and stri ing energy7 wind drift7 stowed ills7 and recoil. "."# mm and $.#% mm rounds were compared with # mm, #.+" mm and #.9 mm, all loaded with lead-free copperJsteel bullets to represent the ).3. The overall outcome of the study was that both #.+" mm and #.9 mm comprehensively outperformed the others in their overall balance of characteristics. 5n %(:% A-; - the ;/ Army -ar smanship ;nit - carried out another study by into the optimum cartridge for a future infantry carbine, and that this concluded that the cartridge length and diameter should be greater than "."# x 2", the calibre should be #." mm and the muCCle energy around %,"(( H, with low-drag bullets =?$ '< L.%"(J7 see below> being used to provide good long-range performance, bettering that of the $.#% mm -9(. These conclusions are supported by a growing view that the next ;/ rifle should be effective at ranges of up to at least #(( m and that "."# mm could not deliver this, no matter what

bullets were loaded. The outcome of these studies should hardly be a surprise, since as -aAor )hrhart observed in his study mentioned above! ""he (00) study by the *oint Service +ound ,allistics - &ntegrated $roduct "eam discovered that the ideal caliber seems to be between ).5 and .'mm. "his was also the general conclusion of all military ballistics studies since the end of +orld +ar &." A31)< did not study the #." mm calibre, but as this is brac eted by their two preferred calibres as well as being the apparent preference of A-;, it seems reasonable to select #." mm in order to wor up some examples of how a purpose-designed ?.< might perform. The examples which follow are therefore merely to illustrate the potential7 the optimum characteristics including the calibre would only be determined after extensive practical testing of various options. The impressive ballistic performance of the ?rendel gives some clear goals at which to aim for our concept demonstration cartridges. This indicates that the muCCle energy, weight and calculated recoil of the ?.< should be approximately midway between the "."# and $.#% similar to the #.9 3emington and #." ?rendel. The bulletDs performance at :,((( metres should be comparable with the $.#% -9( ball, as measured by hit probability =a function of traAectory, flight time and susceptibility to wind drift> and damage potential =bullet energy and penetration>. 5n order to achieve this the ?.< needs to use a low-drag bullet =more technically, one with a high ballistic coefficient, or '<> to minimise the velocity loss with range. This is important because a low-drag bullet brings substantial benefits. As it loses velocity more slowly, achieving a given performance at maximum range means that it can start off at a lower velocity than a higher-drag bullet7 which means that less propellant will be needed, the cartridge can be smaller and lighter and will generate less recoil. The current $.#% NATO bullet has a very mediocre ballistic coefficient, or '<7 the "."# is worse still. 5 should note at this point that there are two different methods of calculating the '< of rifle bullets! the standard commercial one is designated ?:, and applies to pointed bullets with flat bases7 the more appropriate one for low-drag boat-tailed bullets =i.e. tapering towards the base, as with all the examples shown here> is designated ?$. The difference matters, because ?: figures come out at around twice as high as ?$ =which is probably why commercial manufacturers li e using them - they loo betterM>. All of the '<s quoted here are ?$. There are two factors which determine the '< of a bullet in any given calibre! the mass =heavier is better> and the shape, or form factor =66>. The problem with adding mass is that it increases both ammunition weight and recoil7 so the 66 needs to be as good as possible. That means the bullet needs a long, gently tapering nose. Are there any current military rifleG-? bullets with a good 66 which can be ta en as a model& Kes, there is one - the standard 3ussian ".2" mm ball bullet as used in the ammunition for the A,-$2 assault rifle and 3.,-$2 squad automatic weapon.

"he slide above shows the standard /ussian 5.05mm ball bullet in comparison with the 1A"2 5.5) and ..)(, with their form factors and ballistic coefficients as measured by the US Army3s ,allistic /esearch 4aboratory. "hese figures show that the 55 of the 5.05 is better than that of the other two bullets 6a lower 55 is better, in contrast with the ,# in the final column in which a higher figure is better7. & have included in the yellow bo figures for a couple of theoretical ).5mm bullets, an 8 gram lead'cored one and a . gram one which, as discussed above, is probably around the ma imum feasible length for a lead'free bullet in this calibre. Simply matching the 5.053s 55 in such bullets would provide the potential for a good long'range performance, even in a lead'free version, as you can see by the ,#s in the bottom right of the chart. "hese bullets would lose velocity more slowly than the ..)( ball, let alone the 5.5). &ncidentally, the 5.05 mm is not the first to have such a good 559 the :erman ..; mm heavy ball, made by the billion in ++(, had an 55 in the .;00s.

"he slide above involves a bit of photoshopping to illustrate these issues. "he first two pairs of cartridges show the current 5.5) and ..)( ne t to what they would loo< li<e with scaled'up 5.05 bullets. As can be seen, these cartridges cannot accommodate such finely'tapered low' drag bullets because that would ma<e them too long to fit into rifle maga=ines and gun actions. "hey are therefore fundamentally restricted in the ballistic improvements which are possible. "he last two photo moc<'ups show two different ).5mm cartridges with similar bullets 6these are not meant to represent the ideal, they are %ust to illustrate what might be possible7. "he cases have different lengths and diameters but are both appro imately the right si=e to provide a mu==le energy of around (,500*, midway between the 5.5) and ..)(. "he first one is based on the ).8 mm /em case 6>0.. mm diameter7 slightly lengthened and, more important, with a much longer overall length to allow the low'drag bullet to be used. "he second is based on the :rendel 6>>.? mm diameter7, only lengthened by a few mm to provide a greater case capacity and of course also with a greater overall length. @ow might these performA

"he ne t few charts, compiled using the *,B ballistic calculator, compare the performance of the 5.5) mm and ..)( mm 1A"2 rounds with these two ).5 mm cartridges. (0 inch 6508mm7 barrels are assumed in all cases for comparison purposes 6armies may choose shorter barrels for their rifles, but the resulting reduction in performance is li<ely to apply more or less e!ually to all calibres7. "he first one 6above7 shows the velocities with rangeC the 8 gram ).5 mm bullet starts off the slowest but overta<es the ..)( by (00 metres, while the . gram bullet remains faster throughout its flightC the 5.5) starts the fastest but after 000 m becomes the slowest.

"he second chart shows the energies with rangeC the heavy ).5 catches up with the ..)( by 500 metres, the light one by about .00 metresC the 5.5)mm is outclassed at every range, and drops ever further behind as the distance increases.

"he third chart shows the bullet drop in centimetres from rifles =eroed at >00 metresC at >000 metres both ).5s will have dropped about >(.5 metres below the line of sight, the ..)( more than >5 metres, the 5.5) nearly >..

"he fourth shows the wind drift in a >0 mph cross'wind, an important element in long'range hit probabilityC at >000 metres the heavy ).5 will be blown sideways about ? metres, the light lead'free ).5 about ?.? metres, the ..)( about 0.(5 m and the 5.5) about 5.0 m. Dven at shorter ranges, this can ma<e the difference between solidly hitting a target and entirely missing.

"he fifth chart shows the time of flight of the bullet in secondsC both ).5 bullets ta<e about >.; seconds to reach >000 metres, the ..)( about (.> seconds and the 5.5) about (.(.

"he si th slide shows the potential for armour penetration 6assuming similar A$ bullet designs7C this is calculated by dividing the energy by the cross'sectional area of the bullets. "he numbers on the chart represent %oules per mmE. "here isn3t much difference at close range, but the gaps widen as the range increases, the ).5s gaining a clear advantage while the 5.5) suffers particularly badly.

,arrier penetration is calculated differently from armour penetration as it re!uires momentum rather than energy to plough through thic<nesses of material. "his chart is the result of multiplying the bullet weight by the mu==le velocity and then dividing the result by the cross' sectional area of the bullet. "he numbers on the chart represent grams metresFsec divided by mmE. Again, it3s the ).5s 6especially the heavy lead'cored one7 which lead the way with the 5.5) trailing badly.

"he ).5s have two other advantages over ..)( as shown here9 their weights achieve an estimated reduction of around (5G 6particularly useful in belt'fed B:s7, and the free recoil energy in e!uivalent guns is reduced by 00'50G 6important in rifles7. 1ot surprisingly, these are the only areas where the 5.5) has a clear advantage over the other rounds, but since its poor performance at long range means that it is incapable of fulfilling the role of a :$#, that is rather academic. To sum up, the #."s donDt Aust match the $.#%Ds long-range performance7 they are clearly superior to it despite their much lower muCCle energy, even when suffering the performance penalty of a lead-free bullet. And thatDs by using a bullet of a shape which the 3ussians have been churning out by the million for four decades, so no unrealistic assumptions have been made. Needless to say the "."# trails badly in most of these comparisons and becomes completely outclassed at longer ranges. /omething li e the lead-free #." shown above would provide a substantial weight saving over $.#% without losing anything in long-range ballistics or penetration at any range. <ombined with a recoil midway between $.#% and "."#, this would ma e it a viable candidate for a ?.<. 'T !R A&P!CT& '" 0!&%G# A#0 P!R"'RMA#C! The preferred ;/ Army ).3 design features an exposed steel penetrator, and it seems li ely that the same design would be adopted in any other standard rifleG-? calibre. @owever, to satisfy )uropean requirements, the standard =ball> bullet must be compliant with their interpretation of the @ague and ?eneva <onventions. *hich is to say that in a Aac eted bullet,

the Aac et must fully enclose the nose and sides of the bullet. 6urthermore, the bullet must not only not expand on impact, it should be designed so that it does not readily fragment either. 5t is possible for a non-Aac eted bullet to meet these requirements7 the solid brass target bullets already mentioned will neither expand nor fragment =amaCingly, one of the early Fsmall calibreF military bullets, the 6rench 9 mm 'alle 1 of :949, was made from solid brass, and was the first to have a finely-pointed nose, and was the first to have a boat-tail to minimise drag at long range7 it is an impressive performer even today>. 'oth 3;A? and Nammo offer steel-cored fully-Aac eted lead-free loadings in military calibres now, so such designs could easily be applied to a ?.<. Another possibility is the 3;A? $.#% mm @< type, which is basically a steel bullet with the sides and rear enclosed by a brass FshoeF to ta e the rifling! however, it may be more difficult to get this to wor with a #." mm high-'< bullet, because of the 8G1 problem described earlier. 5n any case, armour-piercing and tracer rounds also need to be developed at the same time =although with any steel-cored types, providing A. performance may be merely a matter of using harder steel>. One aspect of bullet performance which is difficult to quantify is the terminal effectiveness against unprotected human targets. As we have seen, with non-fragmenting, non-expanding bullets this depends on the rapidity and reliability with which the bullet yaws after impact. 3apid yaw means that the bullet is more li ely to stop within the target =or at least exit at low velocity> and therefore less li ely to result in collateral damage by continuing on to stri e someone else. The problem is that this aspect of performance can be significantly affected by quite minor changes in bullet shape or construction so is difficult to predict with any confidence! a great deal of experimental wor would be required to maximise the probability that the bullet does not over-penetrate in human targets. As already mentioned, the bullet also needs =as far as is feasible> to be Fbarrier blindF maintaining its traAectory after passing through intermediate barriers, such as windscreen glass, on the way to the target. This again is difficult to predict in advance. All in all, the design of a bullet to meet these varied requirements =some of which may be in conflict with each other> will be a complex exercise in Auggling priorities and will involve a lot of trial and error in the development programme, but it is important to the success of the ?.< concept to get it right! the bullet is the eyM Kou may have noticed that 5 have said little so far about advanced ammunition concepts7 cases of stainless steel, light-alloy or polymer or entirely caseless, and perhaps of telescoped design. That is because 5 am primarily concerned with the performance of the bullet after it has left the gun7 how it gets to that point is a secondary issue. 5 will merely comment that if an entirely new gun and ammunition system such as 8/AT, using plastic-cased telescoped cartridges of cylindrical form, were to be adopted, it would in my opinion be a terrible waste of an opportunity if this merely replicated a calibre we already have, simply because we already have it. An 8/AT ?.< would weigh no more than the current "."#mm, which would of course ma e the ?.< concept even more attractive! the arguments for 8/AT and for a ?.< are mutually supportive. )ven if 8/AT leads to nothing, current developments in lightweight conventional cases =especially part-polymer> as briefly described under 'ption 2 above,

promise weight savings of %"-+(B over brass-cased ammunition, which will apply whatever their calibre. '(9!CT%'#& A#0 R!&P'#&!& 6inally, 5 would li e to address a few of the obAections to the proposed general purpose cartridge, because 5Dve heard a lot of themM 5+ .The pro:lem is not the ammunition; it<s the training/ =ust train soldiers to shoot straight+. Of course, training is by far the most important element in soldier performance, and given the current emphasis on infantry small-arms the development and maintenance of rifleshooting s ills should be a high priority for all infantry, not Aust for a few mar smen. @owever, it is unrealistic to expect soldiers in combat to hit a small strip a few inches wide running from the forehead to the upper chest, as 5 have seen suggested as a solution to the "."#Ds effectiveness problem. 5n any case, we go to a lot of trouble and expense to ma e sure that our troops are well trained and equipped7 why shouldnDt they also have the most effective weapons we can provide& At the very least, it canDt hurt morale to have weapons which the soldier is confident can do whatDs needed over any li ely engagement ranges. 2+ .The *+*,mm performs >ell at long range? troops can hit targets out to *@@-1@@ metres+. The "."#mm can hit targets at long range in ideal circumstances and with s illed shooters! but it is far more subAect to drift in cross-winds than a ?.< would be7 the smaller sonic bang as it goes past has less of a suppressive effect =and the bullet becomes subsonic earlier anyway>7 and it has far less energy to do wor when it gets there. 5t is significant that as soon as Taliban attac s started to be launched from long range, 5/A6 troops were willing to carry $.#% mm rifles and machine guns, despite their extra weight. The "."# mm was thought to be perfectly satisfactory in peacetime, but the test of combat proved otherwise. 6+ .Ammunition >ith Aery long range capa:ility is >asted in a rifle any>ay; :ecause only snipers and marBsmen are trained to shoot that far+. 6or now, the long-range capability would primarily be of benefit in 8-?s and sharpshooter rifles, although it would also aid ordinary riflemen in delivering effective suppressive fire - the main purpose of long-range small-arms fire - for which a lesser standard of accuracy is required than that for scoring hits. @owever, advanced sights currently in development include laser rangefinders and ballistic computers and can also ta e into account crosswinds and other variables. Although initially intended for snipers, it is not difficult to predict that they will become small and inexpensive enough to be available for infantry rifles within the foreseeable future. These will do for longrange rifle shooting what precision guidance its have done for aircraft bombs, and will enable an average soldier to deliver accurate rifle fire to long range - provided that the ammunition is effective at such a range. 7+ .The eCtra >eight of an intermediate cartridge oAer the *+*, >ould increase the soldier<s :urden+. *ith ammunition weight midway between "."# mm and $.#% mm, the overall weight burden for a given number of rounds will depend on the mix of weapons in the squad7 if more $.#% mm than "."# mm ammunition is currently carried, then there will be an overall weight saving with the ?.<. 5n any case, when engagements ta e place beyond the

effective range of "."# mm weapons =as they have done about half the time in Afghanistan> the "."# mm weapons and ammunition become useless dead weight, whereas ?.< and $.#% mm weapons will be effective at any range. 6urthermore, advanced ammunition developments such as part-polymer cases or the 8/AT programme have the potential to eep the ?.< weight down to levels comparable with the current "."# mm. *+ .&oldiers >ithin a section don<t eCchange ammunition :et>een rifles and :elt-fed machine guns any>ay; so ammunition sharing isn<t realistic. . That misses the point! a 'ritish 9-man infantry section normally includes one $.#% mm belt-fed -?, one "."# mm beltfed -?, one $.#% mm rifle, and "."# mm rifles. The ;/ Army has a similar mix. /o the machine-gunners canDt share -? belts, and the riflemen canDt share magaCines across the calibres. That adds a significant element of tactical inflexibility. This is even more significant if the 8-? is magaCine-fed, as it is in some forces, since a ?.< will allow magaCines to be exchanged between all members of a squad. ,+ ."iddling >ith the cali:res isn<t >orth the effort? there is no such thing as a <golden :ullet< that >ill put the enemy do>n first shot eAery time+. This is true, but itDs a question of probability! how often will the cartridge fail to do the Aob& 'oth combat experience and lab testing indicate that, other things being equal, the smaller and less powerful the cartridge, the more li ely it is to fail to incapacitate the target rapidly. 1+ .The GPC concept is untried/ it<s =ust an internet fantasy.+ )very concept is untried until itDs actually made and tested. @owever, the calculations are firmly based in reality, not fantasy. The bullet 66 is the same as the 3ussian standard military bullet7 the cartridge siCes and muCCle energies are closely based on existing production rounds7 the ballistic calculations are standard and reliable. There is no reason to doubt that it will perform as it should. *hat is uncertain is the terminal effectiveness, but that is true of any new bullet. D+ .A GPC >ould :e such a compromise that it >ould :e :ad at eAerything.+ The ballistic calculations are based in reality =see above> and show that the ?.< can match or beat the $.#% mm in virtually every performance criterion, with the exception of terminal effectiveness which is un nown =but we do now that the $.#% mm -9( is not a stellar performer for its calibre, since it yaws only slowly on impact>. The ?.<Ds ballistics would be superior to the "."#Ds in every respect =again, the terminal performance would need to be tested>. E+ .A GPC >ould =ust add one more cali:re/ the *+*, mm and 1+,2 mm >ill remain in serAice+. The focus of this concept is on the needs of dismounted infantry who have to carry their weapons by hand. 6or them, the ?.< would mean carrying one type of ammunition, one type of rifle, and one type of machine gun, rather than two of each, so eeping them supplied would be simpler. There would be no urgency about replacing vehicle-mounted $.#% mm -?s, although the ?.< could be expected to ta e over eventually. /imilarly, "."# mm =especially in lightweight carbines> could be expected to remain in service with non-infantry troops as personal defence weapons for an indefinite period - although the cartridge is not optimal in short-barrelled guns, so ultimately a better solution may be found.

5@+ .The GPC :ullet reFuires such a high (C that it >ould neAer >orB in practice+. Not true. The '< is a function of the calibre, the weight and the form factor. The assumed 66 is the same as the mass-produced 3ussian ".2" mm, so we now it can be done. 55+ .Why choose ,+* mm cali:re >ith a muGGle energy at 2;*@@ 9oulesH. That is chosen for illustrative purposes only. The end result of a lot of evaluation might well have a smaller or larger calibre, and be more or less powerful. 5 thin that #." mm and %,"(( H represent the approximate mid-point of the li ely range of values, however, as indicated by number of previous intermediate cartridges around this figure! the optimum calibre of around #.+"-#.9 mm was also identified in the ;/ ArmyDs A31)< trials of %(:(G::, and both the calibre and muCCle energy are supported by the %(:% A-; study. 52+ .Why not settle on one specification for the GPC; instead of leaAing it openH. 'ecause there is uncertainty over the outcome of the extensive comparative trials which would be needed before the final configuration could be decided! and the NATO armies =especially the ;/ Army> would have to lot to say about the final outcome. 56+ .The historical trend for >ell oAer a century is for ammunition to :ecome steadily smaller/ anything ne> >ould pro:a:ly :e smaller than the *+*, mm.+ <onsidering that the "."# mm was adopted mostly by accident =it was pushed on the ;/ Army as a short-term expedient which they did not want> and that there has been a vocal body of opinion ever since that while something smaller than the $.#% mm NATO was needed the "."# mm was a step too far, that seems unli ely. The fundamentals of exterior ballistics remain the same, regardless of technical developments. 57+ .&mall arms don<t matter at long range - immediate heaAy fire support >ill al>ays :e on call+. This may not necessarily be the case in counter-insurgency scenarios when foot patrols may be thinly spread over a wide area. And even when it is, the ris of collateral damage may restrict its use! ;/ artillery and air support has been considerably restricted in Afghanistan for this reason. As ?eneral .etraeus said! F)very Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause.F ;se of excessive force, he argued, could turn Ftactical victoriesF into Fstrategic setbac sF. 5*+ .The cali:re of the small arms >ill haAe no effect on the outcome of a >ar+. The same could be said about most other military equipment, and it isnDt really the point! the effectiveness of their small arms ma es a great deal of difference to the soldiers whose lives may depend upon them. 5,+ .%t >ould cost too much to change cali:res; there are other priorities for our limited funds+. <learly we have budgetary problems and 5 am not suggesting any immediate change developing new ammunition and weapons will ta e years anyway. @owever, the guns are wearing out and a new generation of small arms needs to be introduced in due course, providing an opportunity to phase in a new calibre. This would especially be true if 8/AT were to be adopted. And adopting one general-purpose cartridge would halve the number of different weapons required, saving money in the long run on acquisition, training and support.

51+ .Afghanistan is not typical in its emphasis on long-range fire? if >e changed cali:res >e >ould :e eFuipping for the last >ar; not the neCt one+. <urrent thin ing in both the 'ritish and ;/ Armies is that counter-insurgency warfare will remain the most probable type of conflict. That means the infantry and their weapons will remain ey elements. 5f you loo at the less stable parts of the world, such conflicts are Aust as li ely as not to ta e place in areas where there are opportunities for long-range fire. 5t is worth emphasising that full-power $.#% mm rifles and machine guns are still in common use around the world, and facing an enemy armed with these puts troops equipped with "."# mm weapons at a disadvantage, increasingly so as the range lengthens. 5t is unli ely to be an accident that Taliban attac s are so frequently launched at long range - they will now the limitations of the "."#. 'esides, what would be the downside of adopting an intermediate calibre even if future combat is at shorter ranges& *e would still benefit from ammunition that is designed to be much more effective than "."# at any range while being lighter and more controllable than $.#%. *ould that be so bad& 5D+ .We >ould neAer get all of the #AT' nations to agree to change to a ne> intermediate cartridge+. *e donDt have to. The ;/ Army unilaterally adopted the "."# mm round about fifteen years before NATO =and even then, some NATO nations didnDt switch to the "."# mm for a long time>. 6or pistols and /-?s the 4x:4 is the only NATO-standardised cartridge, which hasnDt stopped ?ermany and Norway from adopting the 2.# mm or 'elgium the ".$ mm. )ven the fervently law-abiding ;, has adopted the .++9 8- for sniper rifles which is not NATO standardised. And does anyone seriously imagine that if the ;/ decides to go for 8/AT they would wait until all of NATO agreed before ma ing the move& 3ealistically, it would be problematic for any single country to adopt a new standard rifleG-? cartridge without the ;/A being on board7 but if they are, what the rest of NATO decides doesnDt really matter. -& 0!I!)'PM!#T& 5n %(:: a report emerged from the ;/ ArmyDs .rogram )xecutive Office /oldier! &oldier (attlefield !ffectiAeness. This analysis covers a lot of ground and is well worth reading, but 5 have selected Aust a few quotes concerning the ideal characteristics of infantry rifles and their ammunition! "A Soldier must be able to engage the threat hes faced with - whether its at eight meters or 800." ""o be effective in all scenarios, a Soldier needs to have true Hgeneral purposeI rounds in his weapon maga=ine that are accurate and effective against a wide range of targets." "+eaponsJ.must be accurate and capable of engaging the enemy at overmatch distances." 5n %(:+ the ;/ Army announced a DCali:er Configuration &tudyD to support two new smallarms programmes, designated C)AW& =<ombat 8ightweight Automatic *eapon /ystem> and )0AM =8ightweight 1ismounted Automatic -achinegun>. The announcement was made at an N15A =National 1efense 5ndustries Association> conference held in mid-November at the ArmyDs .icatinny Arsenal.

<8A*/ is intended to result in the eventual replacement of all of the existing "."# mm rifles, carbines and light machine guns by one modular weapon family with interchangeable barrels, stoc s and accessories. This is expected to consist of a carbine =barrel length c.+(( mm>, assault rifle =c.2(( mm>, squad designated mar sman rifle =c."(( mm>, and a squad automatic weapon G light machine gun =c.#(( mm barrel>. 81A- is seen as an eventual replacement for the $.#% mm -%2( medium machine gun =6N -A?> and the ."( calibre =:%.$ mm> heavy machine gun in dismounted applications. The calibres of the new weapons have yet to be determined, but the requirements indicate the replacement of the existing "."# mm and $.#% mm NATO rounds that have been in ;/ service for "( and almost #( years respectively. 81A- is intended to match the effective range of the . "( 'rowning with much less weight, so it needs to fire a considerably larger and more powerful cartridge than the $.#% mm. The obvious existing candidates are the .++9 inch =9.# mm> Norma and 8apua -agnum rounds which differ only slightly, with weapons designed for one being readily adaptable to the other. The 8apua round is in widespread use in long-range sniper rifles =including the 'ritish ArmyDs 8::" from Accuracy 5nternational>, while the Norma cartridge was selected for the ?eneral 1ynamics 8*--? =8ightweight -edium -achine ?un> revealed in %(:%. This weighs little more than the -%2(, although the ammunition is significantly heavier. 5f the supporting fire role is to be filled by weapons in 9.# mm or similar calibre intermediate in power between the $.#% mm and :%.$ mm, that implies that the <8A*/ weapons will need to replace some of the lighter current $.#% mm rifles li e the -:2)'3 and -::( =the 'ritish equivalent being the 8:%4A: D/harpshooterD>, plus light machine guns such as the -,29 =6N $.#% mm -inimi>. A reduction in effective range will probably be unacceptable, which means that whatever cartridge is chosen for <8A*/ will need a longer range than "."# mm can provide - in other words, it would need a specification similar to that of the ?.< discussed above. &-MMAR3 5+ The limited, counter-insurgency type of warfare seen in Afghanistan is li ely to recur in future conflicts. /uch conflicts put the emphasis on dismounted infantry operations, because of the need to provide a reassuring presence to the population. The need to minimise the ris of civilian casualties or other unintended damage also puts the emphasis on high-precision weapons of limited destructiveness, particularly small arms. 2+ /mall arms engagements may ta e place anywhere between ( and 9((J metres. The ;/ ArmyDs .)O /oldier report identifies the need for general purpose rifles and ammunition effective at all ranges. 6+ "."# mm ammunition has limited range, and effectiveness problems even at short range when using NATO-standard ammunition7 $.#% mm ammunition suffers from weight and recoil issues. Neither is capable of significant improvement which would adequately address these problems.

7+ 5t is now technically feasible to develop a combination of weapon, ammunition and sights which is effective across the entire (-9((J m range. The enhanced firepower and flexibility this would offer over a mixed-calibre infantry section, plus the savings in procurement, logistics and training, ma e this a desirable aim for the next generation of small arms. *+ 3ecent wor by the ;/ ArmyDs A31)< and A-; has separately identified similar characteristics for the optimum cartridge for future military rifles! around #." mm calibre, and around %,"(( H muCCle energy. ,+ The aims of the <8A*/ element of the ;/ ArmyDs <aliber <onfiguration /tudy indicate that a calibre between the "."# mm and $.#% mm might be favourably considered for future portable small arms. 1+ *or should therefore be underta en by NATO nations to determine the optimum specification of a general-purpose small-arms cartridge and to develop ammunition, weapons and sights accordingly. A follo/5up article loo6ing at the characteristics of the next generation of militar! small arms is 0121 A histor! of the development of assault rifles and their ammunition is 0121

'M!
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Next%20Generation.htm