Army Eyeing 6.5mm for Its Future Battle Rifle

Thomas D'Arcy McGee

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Army Eyeing 6.5mm for Its Future Battle Rifle

Posted By: Matthew Cox October 13, 2017


The U.S. Army’s chief of staff recently made a bold promise that future soldiers will be armed with weapons capable of delivering far greater lethality than any existing small arms.

“Our next individual and squad combat weapon will come in with a 10X improvement over any existing current system in the world, and that will be critical,” Gen. Mark Milley told an audience at AUSA 2017 on Oct. 10.

Milley’s pledge to “significantly increase investments” in a leap-ahead small arms technology appeared low in the story I wrote for Military.com since soldier lethality was the lowest of the Army’s top six modernization priorities.

As Milley was speaking, Textron Systems officials were showing off their new Intermediate Case-Telescoped Carbine, chambered for 6.5mm on the AUSA exhibition floor.

The working prototype has evolved out Textron’s light and medium machine guns that fire 5.56mm and 7.62mm case-telescoped ammunition developed under the Lightweight Small Arms Technology program.

Over the last decade, the Army has invested millions in the development of the program, which has now been rebranded to Textron’s Case-Telescoped Weapons and Ammunition.

Textron’s cased-telescoped ammunition relies on a plastic case rather than a brass one to hold the propellant and the projectile, like a conventional shotgun shell.

The ICTC is a closed bolt, forward feed, gas piston operated weapon, weighing 8.3 pounds. The 6.5mm case-telescoped ammunition weighs 35 percent less and offers 30 percent more lethality than 7.62mm x 51mm brass ammunition, Textron officials maintain.

“I think the most important thing is what we have been able to do with the intermediate caliber, the 6.5mm in this case,” Wayne Prender, vice president of Textron’s Control & Surface Systems Unmanned Systems told Military.com. “We are able to not only provide a weight reduction … and all the things that come with it – we are also able to provide increased lethality because of the ability to use a more appropriate round.”

Textron officials maintain they are using a low-drag “representative” 6.5mm bullet while U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, or ARDEC, is developing the actual projectile.

“We actually used three different bullet shapes and we scaled it,” said Paul Shipley, program manager for of Unmanned Systems. “We scaled 5.56mm up, we scaled 7.62mm down and took a low-drag shape and ran that between the two” to create the 125 grain 6.5mm bullet that’s slightly longer than the Army’s new 130 grain M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Textron officials maintain that the new round retains more energy at 1,200 meters than the M80A1. At that distance, the 6.5mm has an impact-energy of 300 foot pounds compared to the M80A1 which comes in at about 230 foot pounds of energy, Textron officials maintain.

“The increased lethality we are referring to has to do with the energy down range,” Shipley said. “You can take whatever kind of bullet you want, compare them and it’s going to have increased energy down range.”

Lethality has always been a vague concept. Is it the amount of foot pounds of energy at the target? Or is it the terminal performance, or the size of the wound channel, it creates after it penetrates an enemy soldier?

It’s hard to predict how much performance will change if and when ARDEC creates a 6.5mm projectile that meets the Army’s needs.

A lot can be done to predict performance with computer modeling, but ultimately there is no way of knowing how a conceptual bullet will perform until it is live-fire tested thousands of times under multiple conditions, according to a source with intimate knowledge of military ballistics testing.

The Army has also spent years developing its current M855A1 5.56mm and M80A1 7.62mm Enhanced Performance Rounds. After many failures, the service came up with a copper-jacketed round composed of a solid copper slug that sits behind a steel penetrator tip designed to defeat battlefield barriers and remain effective enough to kill or incapacitate.

Is the Army going to throw all of that away, invest millions of dollars to redesign its ammunition-making infrastructure to switch to case-telescoped ammunition?

“What they’ve got in stockpile does what it does, and they know that is not good enough anymore, so they are faced with that choice,” Shipley said.

The Army has not come to a definitive conclusion on a future caliber, but it has been very open about its waning trust in the 5.56mm round.

In late May, Milley revealed to Congress that the M4 Carbine’s M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round cannot penetrate modern enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.

In August, the service launched a competition to find an Intermediate Service Combat Rifle chambered 7.62mm NATO. The Army intended to purchase up to 50,000 new 7.62mm rifles to meet the requirement, according to the solicitation, but sources say that the service has already backed away from that endeavor.

Textron’s 6.5mm case-telescoped carbine certainly looks like the leap-ahead, small-arms tech that the Army is searching for to arm its future soldiers.

Then again, the Army’s imagination was also captured in the late 1990s by the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, or XM29.

Remember that? It featured a 20mm airburst weapon mounted on top of a 5.56mm carbine. XM29 had an advanced fire-control system that could program 20mm shells to burst at specific distances. At 18 pounds, it proved to be too heavy and bulky for the battlefield.

Textron officials maintain that case-telescoped carbine can be customized to whatever the Army wants.

“It’s configurable,” Shipley said. “The technology that is inside is what counts.”
 
They have been playing around with 6.5mm telescopic ammo for a while. There was a study of comparing this to 5.56 and 7.62 CT, because Textron is also involved in the CT LMG.

The question is whether they are going to trash 7.62 and replace it with 6.5, or replacing both 5.56 and 7.62 and 6.5.

The problem of 6.5 CT is that it is 30% heavier than 5.56 CT, so that doesn't drive with "reducing" the solder's load agenda. The weight different between 6.5CT and 7.62 CT is only 10%.

If we trash 7.62, it means everyone and NATO needs to think about it. 7.62 exist as GPMG not only in dismounted platoons, but in all vehicles and helicopters. Tell them to the German and Canada ( HAHAAH ) who just invest in new 7.62 GPMG which are supposed to last another 20 years.

It will take years and a lot of work/determination to do that.
 
The argument of 5.56 or 6.5 or 7.62 has been going on for several years now. NATO needs to sit down and make a multilateral decision about any changes to the cartridges they want to use!
 
Maybe the Yanks should have listened to the BBC group (Britain Belgium Canada) about 65 years ago regarding the 7x43 round.

But Nooo, they ignored the science.
 
They'd probably be better off waiting for 10 or 15 more years to further refine CT technology, and to see where nanocompositites and other new materials technologies take body armor, before taking such a big leap.
 
Hope they go with the 6.5 and state the reason is the 556 is not lethal enough. Should get the libs dippers and SJW gun control freaks off our backs and we can state the 556 is not an effective lethal round and that ar15's et al are just glorified 22 cal plinkers.
 
The argument of 5.56 or 6.5 or 7.62 has been going on for several years now. NATO needs to sit down and make a multilateral decision about any changes to the cartridges they want to use!

It is difficult. Everyone is at a different stage in its small arms and GPMG live cycles. The US doesn't care because they have so many weapons and they are buying continuously, but for small countries that buy a fleet once every 25 years it is hard. It is a hard budget pill to swallow to ditch a weapon midway through unless there is a very good justification, like the Aliens are coming we need 50 KW plasma weapon. Even the German who are dicing the G36 dragged it to the end of its life cycle for replacement ( G36 has been in service for over 20 years)

If any innovation is to happen, the US would have to do it along and drag the others along with it. How many years did it take for NATO to completely ditch 7.62 rifles? The Portuguese and Greek are still running G3! LOL

The opportunity is here the UK is expecting to ditch SA80 starting in 2025, and that Brexit may actually give it a chance to weight less on commonality within the EU part of NATO, ie French and German. The US will have to commit to a CT solution within 3 years if it wants any chance that the Brits will come along. The French and German have pretty much decided to stay for the 5.56 in the next 25 years already with the HK416 and the pending German selection- which is going to be the HK433 anyways. Other bigger second tier NATO like Italy and Spain are already on the new AR160 and midway through HKG36. I know Canada is not going to buy new GPMGs because we just pay 25000 a piece for the locally made C6, and that creates 10 new employments in Kitchener! Oddly enough we in Canada might be able to catch on the CT if there is a will, because C7A2 is almost done, but the easy solution is to close our eyes and just buy C8 that lasts for another 20 years because the majority of the NATO will be on 5.56 for many years to come. If we play with NATO in the Baltics and Poland, we are not going to have our own weird CT ammo. The US has the ability to supply themselves 100%, not us.

The punch line here is that the US really doesn't care about what the rest of the NATO is doing anyways. If they want to do anything they will do it on their own.
 
Last edited:
The move to CT ammo ( whether it is 6.5, 5.56 or 7.62) is a good thing. The textron LSAT in 5.56 comes under 10 lb and the 7.62 version is like 15lb. This is a far cry from the C9 and C6, plus the saving in ammo weight by 30%.

I also think the rotating chamber and push through ejection will be more reliable and less finicky than the tradition rim grabbing extraction system The timing in a rotating chamber in a CT won't be as critical as the brass case rim grabber system. Balancing the speed of the extraction cycle and the expansion/contraction of brass case is no longer a factor, because it doesn't need to worry about the tension of the extractor. The system can go faster or slower because plastic doesn't expand, especially when it is being pushed out of the chamber.

If there is a stuck case, there is no need to mortar or pry the casing out. They can make a forward assist that just rams the casing out of the chamber. A much better system than the brass cased ammo machine guns.
 
Last edited:
Is there animation on how Cased Telescopic works in terms of chambering, firing, extracting? I'm having hard time imagining that. That is still two-stage ignition, or three? Or three is in Caseless Telescopic?
 
The 5.56 has been around for years and there is much evidence both anecdotal and scientific to indicate that there are much better options available. They keep saying it's of no consequence, that it doesn't win wars, it's a small insignificant part of war fighting etc, etc.

So get it done already. Make a change for the better and just do it. It costs significantly less than say outfitting the air force with a new jet fighter program or the navy with state of the art frigates but it is a piece of equipment that will see a lot of use on a daily basis because of the type of insurgent wars we fight nowadays. The rifle/combo has been in service for over fifty years - We know there's better out there so just get it done and quit the agonizing over trivia.

I don't thinking there is anywhere near this agonizing over any other military procurement (well maybe helicopters) than over what rifle/ammo to field.
 
I think it will take another 15 years before armies move to this round. The HK416 I think will take over for most contracts as the go to rifle.
 
Back
Top Bottom