wrong, useless is not when somebody thinks it is but when objectively doesn't meet meet some criteria. if 6,8mm and 7,62mmcan kill with same range you need, regardless or defined amour protection level then then you choose 50% more ammo per soldier.
But that is the problem... you don't know if it is just as effective until you take it into combat... the 5.56mm was supposed to be so much better than 7.62x51 they removed 7.62x51mm weapons from entire units... entire units had M16 or M4 carbines and M249 LMGs all in 5.56mm, yet in Afghanistan they realised they couldn't reliably kill people at much more than 200m because most soldiers had M4s or M249s with short barrels and most of the time from a short barrel the 5.56mm is just very ordinary on target...
In Afghanistan they introduced semi auto only 7.62x51mm rifles... like the Soviets used SVDs in the 1980s in Afghanistan...
no, it was to be universal round for MGs and ARs alike. They also were plying with Dragunov version for this round.
What are you talking about?
If you are talking about the Russian 6x49mm round then no, it was never intended to replace the 5.45mm rounds for close range use.... meaning battle ranges of 300m or less.
The 6x49mm needed a very long barrel to achieve its performance and they only ever made a machine gun and a sniper rifle testing model in that calibre... there was never an intention to use it in assault rifles.
If you are talking about the 6.8mm... yeah, whatever... don't really care...
5,45x39mm, 7,62x39mm, 7,62x54mm - those all could be replaced by only one round. Not only better characteristics but also puts much less strain on logistics.
Suggests to me you are talking about the Russians and the 6x49mm, which means you are wrong... it was never intended to replace assault rifle calibres...
BTW I also fail to see difference between "OK 5,45mm" and "ineffectual 5,56" Mind to elaborate?
Seems to me that the US has very high expectations of their small arms ammo, while the Russians seem to have a more realistic appreciation...
For lethal effect the 5.56mm needs to be moving above a minimum speed to fragment inside the target... as most American soldiers are armed with short barrel M4 rifles that almost never happens.
Perhaps that's the source of your misunderstanding .No animals wear body amour. Neither are shooting back to you. So you take your time and if ammo is out just go to car and take more. Army's round doesnt need to be humanitarian but effective.
Even the most effective body armour consists of a plate the size of a dinner plate over the persons chest so headshots, gutshots, hip or pelvis shots and shots to the arms and legs are perfectly effective enough... especially multiple hits.
I appreciate animals are not people, replace humaine with lethality...
Tell my why for Soviet army in Afghanistan 5,45mm was just fine and now 6-7mm isnt because is too small and inhumane ?
Perhaps you might like to go back and reread what I wrote because you clearly are not understanding what I said.
The 5.45mm was just fine because it was also used with 7.62x54mm SVD rifles and 7.62x54mm PKM machineguns, so the muj couldn't sit 500m away and take potshots with 303s or other PKMs and not worry about any return fire being effective like they could against American units armed with M4 carbines and M249 LMGs both in 5.56mm calibre.
5.45mm is fine for short range where assault rifles are intended and designed to be used.
For medium to longer range where most units use rifles like SVD or LMGs and MMGs like RPK-74 and PKM the calibre they currently use is the 7.62x54mm which is a powerful and effective but also rather old cartridge... it is so old it is one of the few things in Russian service that in 1991 was Russian designed...
I fully support them adopting a 6x49mm round for all the reasons I have mentioned... the better aerodynamic shape means it retains velocity better so it gets to the target at long range faster and with a lot more energy than a slower larger calibre round.
The 6x49mm round is not inhumaine because it isn't a light little 50 grain bullet that at long range has slowed down to ineffectual speed... it uses a 120 grain bullet that is a similar weight to most centre fire 30 calibre rifle rounds which are often 150-180 grain but would be moving much slower at longer range because of their worse aerodynamic shape.
And that' s precisely why Tshintomash scientists proposed to replace it.
If the target is at medium to long range they probably wont fucking hit it with an assault rifle anyway.... let the guy in the unit with the SVD shoot the target or the guy with the PKP.
NGSC ...=/= M249
+ marksman rifle for new round. BTW exactly what Soviets with 6x49mm were doing.
Back to top
And the Soviets were developing the 6x51mm to replace the 7.62 x 54mm round, it is optimised to extend its effective range beyond 1,000m to about 1,500m in a medium machine gun or sniper rifle.
They later optimised the design down to 6x49mm while retaining performance but it needed a very long barrel to achieve the high muzzle velocity it needed to retain energy to that distance and would not be practical in an assault rifle length weapon... unless they replaced their AK-74Ms with RPK-74s... which I doubt.
There are examples of 6x49mm calibre MGs and 6x49mm calibre SVD variants, but no AKs or assault rifles in that calibre that I know of.
And in the article you originally posted criticised the 5.45mm for lack of medium and long range penetration but the article suggested going to 7.62mm weapons... not 6mm ones.