A cartridge instead of a machine gun: why the US Army changed the caliber

12 233 68
A cartridge instead of a machine gun: why the US Army changed the caliber


In the Afghan valleys, American infantry encountered an unpleasant pattern. Fights often began at distances where a light machine gun chambered for 5,56mm could no longer effectively reach the enemy. A heavy machine gun chambered for 7,62mm could, but it weighed so much that maneuvering was impossible. The infantry found itself stuck between these extremes for years. But what if it wasn't the machine gun that needed replacing? The problem might lie in the cartridge itself.



The Afghan Gap: Where 5,56 Ends, and 7,62 Is Still Heavy


The American unit in the mountains had three guns. Let's start with them.


The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) light machine gun has been used by the United States military since 1986.

The M249 SAW is an American version of the Belgian FN Minimi chambered for 5,56×45mm, in service since the early 1980s. For decades, it was the core of squad automatic fire: lightweight, rapid-fire, and belt-fed. The M240 is a general-purpose machine gun chambered for the powerful 7,62×51mm, effective against area targets (a neighborhood, a group of troops) at a range of approximately one and a half kilometers. And the large-caliber M2 chambered for .50 BMG: its bullet travels several kilometers, but it can effectively engage a point target (a specific object) much closer, and it weighs about 38 kg (without a tripod). This weapon For vehicles and stationary positions, not for light infantry.


The M240 machine gun, in service with the US Army.

In Afghanistan, this trio failed. The M249 was mobile, but its cartridge lost both accuracy and penetrating power at long ranges. The M240 hit the target, but the machine gun and its ammunition placed a heavy burden on the soldiers. The M2 covered long-range positions, but dragging it behind infantry in the mountains was unrealistic. The result was a gap: at 600-800 meters and beyond, the squad either missed its target or paid for the range with its excessive weight.


M2 Browning .50 BMG (12,7×99 mm) heavy machine gun mounted on armored vehicles

A second factor added to this: the growing prevalence of body armor. Modern armor increasingly stopped 5,56mm bullets at range, and the range issue became a penetration problem. It's worth noting that there was no consensus on this: some analysts believed the gap could be closed without changing calibers, for example, by using company snipers with DMR (designated marksman rifles) or by optimizing existing ammunition. But the Pentagon chose a more radical approach.

NGSW: Start with ammunition


The Next Generation Squad Weapon program aimed to replace both the M4 rifle and the M249 machine gun in the squad, and also to relieve some of the burden on the M240 general-purpose machine gun by allowing the new weapon to partially cover its missions. But the most interesting part is where they started.

Typically, a weapons revolution begins with the weapon itself: they design a better barrel and add a newer mechanism. NGSW took a different approach. First, they determined what kind of cartridge would be needed to reach beyond the 5,56 caliber, penetrate modern armor, but not add weight to the load like a full-size 7,62 caliber. The weapon was then designed around it.


Participants in the U.S. Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program, designed to replace the M4 rifle and M249 machine gun.

This is how the 6,8×51mm cartridge was born. Its key feature is its hybrid case: according to SIG Sauer, a brass body is seated on a steel base. The solution was needed for one purpose: to withstand much higher chamber pressures than a conventional solid brass case. Higher pressures result in higher muzzle velocity, which translates into better flatness, range, and armor penetration. At the same time, the cartridge's weight remains between 5,56 and 7,62.

A caveat is important here. The hybrid case is a young technology: independent long-term testing and extensive military experience are still limited, so it's more reasonable to base its specifications on the manufacturer's data. But the underlying principle (increasing pressure to squeeze more out of the barrel without increasing the ammunition load to 7,62mm) is the engineering foundation of the entire program.


The .277 FURY (6,8×51 mm) cartridge, developed by Sig Sauer

XM7 and XM250: weapons chambered for


SIG Sauer won the 2022 NGSW Weapons and Ammunition Competition. Its system includes the XM7 rifle (earlier designated the XM5) and the XM250 light machine gun.


The SIG Sauer XM250 is a light machine gun developed for the US Army chambered for the 6,8mm caliber cartridge.

The XM250 is a belt-fed machine gun weighing approximately 6,6 kg, significantly lighter than the M240, but with a much more powerful cartridge than the M249. It is belt-fed only. Incidentally, the M249 also had an ambidextrous magazine feeder, but this mode was considered more of an emergency and finicky option, so it was simply removed from the new machine gun. An integrated suppressor is standard equipment, reducing visibility and the load on the shooter. The design is fully ambidextrous.

No authoritative public sources provide the XM250's exact effective range in meters. However, thanks to the switch to 6,8x51mm, its ballistics significantly outperform anything offered by the standard 5,56x45mm (NATO standard), precisely at the ranges where the Afghan gap previously yawned.


The Vortex XM157 Sighting System (NGSW-FC) has been selected by the US Army for new rifles and machine guns.

A separate and underrated component of the kit is the XM157 scope. It's made not by SIG, but by Vortex Optics (a division of Sheltered Wings), and it's a separate contract under the program. The scope incorporates a ballistic computer and rangefinder. Without such a scope, the potential of the long-range cartridge would remain unrealized: to hit targets at long ranges, powerful ammunition isn't enough, and the shooter won't be able to make adjustments by eye.

In 2025, according to published data, the Army officially designated the machine gun M250, meaning it moved from the experimental stage (prefix X) to production. At the same time, the rifle also received a permanent designation—M7.

The price of a new caliber


Changing patrons at the department level is a fork in the road with long-term consequences: you'll have to pay for it for years.

First and foremost, logistics. The army won't convert its entire infantry to the 6,8mm cartridge overnight. This means several cartridges will remain in service for a long time: the new 6,8mm for the re-equipped units, the old 5,56mm for the rest, and the still-present 7,62mm for general-purpose machine guns. Two, or even three, ammunition supply lines seriously complicate logistics, directly contradicting the original idea of ​​simplifying and lightening squad equipment.

Then there's physics. High pressure and a heavier bullet produce increased recoil, which is more difficult to control in automatic fire, especially from a rifle. Each cartridge is heavier than a 5,56mm, so a soldier carries fewer rounds for the same ammunition weight, and for suppression weapons, the number of rounds is significant. And then there's the cost: the hybrid case and the new caliber are more expensive than the 5,56mm, a standard caliber that has been around for decades.

History There are weapons "revolutions" that have performed brilliantly at the testing grounds, only to stall in limited implementation, unable to withstand the logistical and financial burdens. Whether the 6,8 will follow their fate or become the new standard, no ballistics table can predict.

The fate of the 6,8 will be decided in warehouses, budgets, and supply convoys. This is where such programs usually stall; the proving grounds have long had no role to play. Whether the army can handle both calibers simultaneously remains to be seen. The US has already achieved the range advantage; its true cost will be assessed for a long time to come.
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    21 June 2026 06: 41
    And I propose something seditious!
    Don't reinvent what's already been invented, but rather have the Russian army, following the US army, switch to the same caliber and cartridge.
    Patriots will curse me: it is not right for us to adopt someone else's weapons! We must follow our own path!
    That's true, but following the beaten path saves us a lot of 1. Money, 2. Time, 3. Resources.
    And the most important advantage: you'll be able to collect tons of captured ammo (when the time comes!).
    1. IVZ
      +2
      21 June 2026 08: 22
      Don't reinvent what's already been invented, but rather have the Russian army, following the US army, switch to the same caliber and cartridge.
      This is an absolutely sound approach, but there's a "but." Switching calibers isn't a problem, but the cartridge... Its manufacturing technology (case, propellant powder, manufacturing precision) is unlikely to allow us to achieve the same performance indicators in both ballistics and accuracy. But getting closer to them, at a lower cost and labor intensity, is entirely possible. Moreover, better manufacturing and economic characteristics will ensure mass production, and as we all know, it's better to have a slightly inferior cartridge in sufficient quantity than to run out of ammunition.
      1. +3
        21 June 2026 09: 47
        Quote: IVZ
        The technology of its production (casing, gunpowder, manufacturing precision) is unlikely to allow us to achieve the same performance indicators in terms of both ballistics and accuracy.

        Well, you could try not to steal all the money completely, but leave some for production - replace and modernize the machines, clarify the process charts, even (horrible, I understand) raise the workers' salaries...
        1. IVZ
          +3
          21 June 2026 09: 58
          Yes, we can try. But it's not entirely about money and its theft, and wages alone won't suffice, as bitter as that is to admit. We need a different level of production and economic growth, and that requires not only expenditure but also political will and time. Japan, China, and South Korea are examples of this. All we have is the desire, but we want it all to happen for free.
          1. +1
            21 June 2026 10: 19
            Quote: IVZ
            another production and economic level has already been reached,

            Blah-blah-blah-blah... A lot is needed, in general. If "we can't get by here," should we call Gandalf with a magic wand? Or start a three-hundred-year reform? Couldn't we move from pointless chatter "in general" to concrete proposals? Actionable ones? Otherwise, it's completely uninteresting...
            1. IVZ
              +1
              21 June 2026 10: 46
              So should we call Gandalf with a magic wand? Or start a three-hundred-year reform?
              We need to work, not blah-blah... And who's interested in this? In implementing specific proposals? And what exactly are the specifics, by the way? What "needs to be done"? I'm telling you, the Japanese wanted to live better? They implemented reforms, and it didn't take 300 years. But we, excuse me, have only desires, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the criminal underworld, thieves, and the like who are getting rich... and most often not through economic and industrial development. And what can we do about this if there are no, and cannot be, political decisions from the government?
              1. +3
                21 June 2026 11: 30
                We need to work, not blah-blah... And who's interested in this? In implementing specific proposals? And what exactly are the specifics, by the way? What "needs to be done"? I'm telling you, the Japanese wanted to live better? They implemented reforms, and it didn't take 300 years. But we, excuse me, have only desires, and in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's the criminal underworld, thieves, and the like who are getting rich... and most often not through economic and industrial development. And what can we do about this if there are no, and cannot be, political decisions from the government?

                Let's move on to the new 100%. And instead of the tried and tested Grendel 6,5x41 with excellent ballistics, we'll switch to the unparalleled 6,02x41.
                Now is the right time, the warehouses are empty, most of the guns have been shot.
                The same applies to artillery; it can finally be standardized in a smart way. wink
                And everything else, maybe finally we'll get a normal armored personnel carrier. bully
                1. IVZ
                  +2
                  21 June 2026 13: 55
                  Let's move on to the new 100%. And instead of the tried and tested Grendel 6,5x41 with excellent ballistics, we'll switch to the unparalleled 6,02x41.
                  The 6,02x41 is supposedly a Tula development. Concern K will likely not approve it, and private conversations with some of its representatives confirm this. Besides, the story of the 5,45 will repeat itself, when a cartridge obviously less powerful than the .223 was adopted. And in an even worse form.
                2. +3
                  21 June 2026 17: 00
                  What if... One day... I don't believe it myself... They'll use not 6,02, but exactly 6 millimeters? Huh?! Maybe someone will someday decide to discard the fantastically stupid system of measurements used by English machine tools and switch to the metric system? Nonsense, of course...
                3. 0
                  3 July 2026 16: 11
                  Quote: Arzt
                  instead of the proven Grendel 6,5x41

                  The Grendel 6,5x39, however, is even more in its favor.
                  Range up to 800 m, covers it perfectly. The Serbs know.
                  And 8,6 NM as a pair. 7,62 won't be needed at all.
                4. 0
                  3 July 2026 16: 19
                  Quote: Arzt
                  has no analogues)) 6,02x41.

                  I suspect that based on the results of the SVO, they won't be inventing any more cartridges for new calibers. At least you can buy the well-known ones if you're in a pinch. The same 9x39 can be converted to 8,6 bullets. That would be good. The bullet weight is the same, the caliber is smaller. All in all, a plus.
    2. +3
      21 June 2026 09: 40
      You can get tons of captured ammo (when it comes to that!).

      It works both ways.
      1. 0
        21 June 2026 15: 24
        But you and I are on the right side!)))
    3. +1
      21 June 2026 10: 01
      During the Great Patriotic War, Soviet 82mm mortars successfully fired captured 81mm mortar shells, but the Germans could not fire ours.
      1. IVZ
        0
        21 June 2026 10: 10
        This was the intended caliber choice, but during the war, at least initially, our ammo depots were captured by the enemy, even though there was no shortage of captured mortars. However, the export potential, especially after the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, proved rather low.
  2. +2
    21 June 2026 07: 02
    It's hard to understand their hype when there are quite successful 6.5mm cartridges in re-sized standard cases. Take the notorious Grendel, a 6.5mm in our x39 case, and the .243, a popular and well-tested cartridge among hunters and even some military forces, the 6.5mm in x51 case, the .308win...
    1. IVZ
      +2
      21 June 2026 08: 34
      6.5 in x51 .308win...
      And that's exactly it. It's simply designed for higher pressures, which is why the case needed to be modified. The .308 was originally designed as a hunting cartridge for bolt-action rifles, like the .223, and the case rim thickness, for use in automatic weapons, proved to be somewhere near the limit of strength, and the increased bore pressure apparently exacerbated this problem. The use of a steel case base solves this problem while maintaining the case geometry.
      1. 0
        21 June 2026 08: 52
        Why crank up the pressure? Like, to achieve incredible flatness? The SVO, and even the Israeli operations, clearly demonstrated that there's less and less room for small arms combat at long ranges. Given these circumstances, it's much cheaper to just use re-crimped standard cases and call it a day. Without all those expensive extras... Creating a universal cartridge for all occasions is just not going to happen.

        Well, for now, of course, liquid gunpowder won't be used, for example... Where the load could be measured right before the shot. But for now, that's all pure science fiction.
        1. IVZ
          0
          21 June 2026 09: 09
          Why increase pressure?
          To increase penetration against the SIB. I received a test report showing that even the 300WM's penetration is supposedly insufficient, although the type of bullet used was left unspecified. The problem does exist.
          1. 0
            22 June 2026 00: 45
            I was sent a report on the test results, which showed that even the 300WM's penetration was allegedly insufficient, 

            I don't really believe it, 300 winmag isn't enough?!
        2. 0
          21 June 2026 20: 52
          How much longer do we have to debunk myths? High pressure is a consequence not of high power, but of fast-burning powder (the same energy in less time). This allowed for a significant reduction in the weapon's size (even with a suppressor, it's shorter than an AK-74) and its weight. The cartridge itself is roughly equivalent to a .308, but by reducing the caliber while maintaining the same bullet weight, its ballistic performance, including target performance, has significantly improved. All of this is a result of technology, not a blunt "magnumization."
      2. 0
        21 June 2026 14: 26
        Quote: IVZ
        The use of a steel cartridge case bottom solves this problem while maintaining the cartridge case geometry.

        They recently wrote that some kind of alloy was invented for this purpose.
    2. +2
      21 June 2026 09: 01
      The 6,5×39mm Grendel is an intermediate cartridge. Approximately 2500 J.
      Similar to the 6,8×43mm Remington SPC, which was also considered.
      The 6,8×51mm is a rifle cartridge. It's much more powerful, at 3700 J.
      It's even more powerful than the standard 7,62×51mm NATO, which has 3500 J.
      The widespread use of personal protective equipment and its constant growth has forced a move back in machine guns from intermediate to rifle cartridges, while at the same time attempting to maintain the weight and size characteristics of the weapon close to intermediate ones.
      1. 0
        21 June 2026 11: 32
        Let's look at peacetime conditions. Heavy personal protective equipment, BR5 and above, is quite heavy. Moreover, it doesn't cover that much of the body. Given the declining importance of long-range firefights, does it make sense to sacrifice something like a completely new, high-penetration cartridge? Nobody's been going full-length into battle for a long time. And if the operation is against yet another bunch of "slipper wearers," their body armor isn't exactly great; they're more than happy with their old ammunition.

        Actually, a standard plate is 30x25 cm. According to the BR5, it weighs over 3 kilos. On my size 58 body, for example, it looks like some kind of giant pendant. Heh. The enlarged one is about 34x27, so it weighs almost 4 kilos each. Plus the plates in the cummerbunds. So, figure it out. If they don't catch you at full height, they're much more likely to catch you in the upper part of the body, above the plate. And there, at best, there's BR2 anti-fragmentation, and not everyone has that. The same goes for the edges, the arms and legs, and the pumpkin. Which doesn't even protect against a low-impulse round.
        1. 0
          21 June 2026 11: 51
          Class 4 bulletproof vest (Br4) is a standard for individual torso protection that can withstand hits from machine gun bullets with a heat-strengthened core (AK-74, AKM) from a distance of 10 meters.
          Features and protection
          Withstands: 5,45mm (7N10 cartridge) and 7,62mm (57-N-231 cartridge) bullets. It also often withstands light sniper rifle bullets (SVD) and shrapnel.
          Weight: Varies from 8 to 12 kg, depending on the armor plates used (steel or ceramics).
          Classification: According to the Russian GOST, this class is designated as Br4 (previously covered classes 4 and 5).

          There's a huge difference between being wounded and killed. A vest, even if it doesn't provide complete coverage, significantly reduces the number of fatal injuries. The Americans want a round that reliably penetrates existing and future body armor.
          1. 0
            21 June 2026 13: 05
            Alas. A slab is designed to be flown to the hospital within half an hour after being hit. Which, as you can imagine, is hardly realistic in today's war. If, say, you were hit above the edge of the slab, I don't think you'd survive long without immediate medical attention. Knock on wood... And an exposed belly with sides above the cummerbunds doesn't inspire optimism. Not to mention the rest of your body, exposed to all the shrapnel.

            The BR4 isn't much lighter either, weighing in at just under 3 kilos. And it's a standard stove. And it costs about the same as the BR5.

            Here's the full combat version. Almost no hip protection, too lazy to strap it on. And no helmet. If you look closely, there's an additional BR2 plate above the plate, in addition to the neck guard, and the side armor is above the cummerbunds. And even then, there are plenty of bare spots... And it's quite heavy, a bit heavy to lug around, especially on a regular basis. Plus all that other hardware... Wow! And that's even taking into account the waist braces from the cummerbunds. They're definitely easier, a good thing.
            And everything except the plate can be penetrated by any bullet. Purely anti-fragmentation. And my plates are oversized.
            P.S. I'm not that fat, it's just the armor that makes it look that way!! belay laughing
            1. 0
              21 June 2026 13: 15
              There are statistics on injuries and their consequences. And the correlation is far from direct. Roughly speaking, 20 percent of injuries account for 80 percent of fatalities. That's why they cover precisely that 20 percent of the body. No bulletproof vest offers a 100 percent guarantee; it only reduces the likelihood. But in most cases, that's enough. The Americans are trying to get around this.
              1. 0
                21 June 2026 13: 25
                Once again, statistics provide options for the conditions under which emergency medical care is provided. Because before the SVO, few people in the West had encountered a situation where emergency evacuation was absolutely impossible.
                1. 0
                  21 June 2026 13: 41
                  Each person has statistics for their own conditions and capabilities.
      2. 0
        21 June 2026 11: 40
        Here's a photo of a typical slab-mounted mattress pad, bare. And keep in mind that the slab doesn't cover its entire surface. Just for fun, cut it out of 30x25 cardboard like this and try it on... Your neck, collarbones, sides, and belly are completely unprotected. That means you'll need to add some extra gear. And that means money and weight.
  3. +2
    21 June 2026 08: 43
    In the US civilian market, the 6.5 Creedmoor (6.5 x 49) has supplanted the .308 Win. It's faster, flatter, more wind-resistant due to its velocity, lighter, and fits standard-sized magazines. The only drawback is shorter barrel life.
    In fact, the Marines have already largely switched to a new caliber in machine guns and designated marksman rifles.

    The Army's NGSW program is more like the unsuccessful M14. The cartridge is 20% heavier than the Creedmoor, and the rifle with a muzzle brake and smart sights weighs 5.4 kg, which is quite significant.
    Let me clarify that they plan to transfer only riflemen to the M7: 110 out of 450 thousand. The remaining support soldiers will remain with the M4.
    I think the M7 rifle will fail. Although it could remain in service as a designated marksman rifle and machine gun caliber. Or it could remain a secondary weapon for combat in desert theaters, while the proven M4 is reserved for jungle and European theaters.

    The Americans had some interesting developments in the sighting field. A smart sight with a rangefinder that shows where to aim and prevents firing until the barrel is pointed at the target. In peacetime, this is a source of incidents and lawsuits. But in war, it would probably make it much easier to shoot down FPV drones.
    1. -2
      21 June 2026 08: 56
      Rangefinders are terrible in difficult weather conditions or smoky terrain. However, these gadgets completely discourage soldiers from shooting from open positions. And when the optics, for whatever reason, fail to work, it's a real shame and a real pain. But not for long.
      1. +3
        21 June 2026 10: 16
        Are you a fan of General Dragomirov? He was the one who took the maxim "a bullet is a fool, a bayonet is a good man" to its extreme limits; they even limited the number of rounds given to soldiers so they wouldn't be distracted from hand-to-hand combat. Indeed, let a soldier with a knife attack. Sights only get in his way...
        1. -1
          21 June 2026 11: 23
          And reading the test is completely impossible? Like, you're eager to show off your wits? I thought I just stated the obvious: the widespread use of such gadgets in Western armies is leading to the extinction of open-air shooting skills. Like, because they're no longer needed. Which, in real combat, could lead to dire consequences; ruining a sight isn't that hard. What's so hard to understand? Even for the exceptionally gifted?
          1. 0
            21 June 2026 16: 57
            And these armies... You see, it would be a good idea to first prove such claims. Provide statistics, the opinion of someone who stands by their words. Your assertion is completely unfounded, and at the same time, it doesn't constitute a logical conclusion. There's not the slightest connection between perfect aiming and any extinction.
            1. 0
              21 June 2026 18: 00
              And for me, yours is just empty chatter. Because it's obvious you've never even held a slingshot in your hands. Let's leave it at that.
              1. 0
                22 June 2026 08: 26
                You've convinced me. Where would I be? You know everything about all the bourgeois armies, so you're at least the Tsar of Intelligence. Since we don't have such a position, you're from the US.
      2. +3
        21 June 2026 12: 52
        Shooting with a mechanical weapon is an absolutely essential foundation, I agree. But in the States, for example, they take the standards without any optics, and you have to pass them with good results, otherwise you won't be promoted to sergeant. So the soldiers won't forget how to shoot.
      3. +2
        21 June 2026 14: 39
        Quote: paul3390
        And at that moment, when the finger-tipped optics for one reason or another do not work, it will be very disappointing and painful.
        But while it works, it will be very painful for the enemy.
    2. +1
      21 June 2026 13: 18
      A smart sight with a rangefinder that shows where to aim and that does not allow you to shoot until the barrel is pointed at the target.

      Calculates all lead and offset factors. The sight mark is calculated with these factors in mind. You just need to align the mark with the target and begin your descent.
  4. 0
    21 June 2026 09: 43
    Typically, rearmament in the military begins because a section of the military-industrial complex negotiates with the authorities to extract a larger chunk of the budget. The authorities decide among themselves how much each gets, and then a publicity campaign begins with the most idiotic justifications for the need to line certain pockets. The most idiotic justification is that "the weapons are obsolete."
    However, in this case, everything is quite rational. It's even strange that for once, instead of advertising crap, I'm reading some sensible text. The only question I have is: a composite cartridge. Why? Why not make the case all-steel?
    The USSR had this cartridge in service. Yes, it doesn't store as well, but there was a proven varnish for the cartridge casings that didn't interfere with firing, didn't damage the weapon, and extended the cartridge's shelf life. Recalculate the cartridge casing using modern computing capabilities and machine tools, and make it.
    What are the objections?
    1. 0
      21 June 2026 10: 02
      The question is different. How can a two-piece cartridge case made of different materials be stronger than a solid-drawn one?
      1. 0
        21 June 2026 10: 12
        Solid-drawn—no way. Durable—can be made, of course. But we're talking about weapons, not trying to nag the "author" for a poor translation.
        1. 0
          21 June 2026 20: 40
          Well, I left out the price aspect.
          Is it possible to do this cheaply?
          In general, these experiments with bimetallic cartridges look somehow strange.
          1. 0
            22 June 2026 08: 33
            Quote: garri-lin
            In general, these experiments with bimetallic cartridges look somehow strange.

            Well, yes. But it's quite natural. It's most likely a matter of patent law. Here's an example: a bracket for video cameras was invented long ago, allowing for convenient and practical positioning of the camera and its readjustment when needed. But the patent for this bracket requires significant royalties. So now camera brackets are no longer manufactured; they're part of the camera. And they're incredibly inconvenient, don't hold their position well, and are the worst possible component in the world. But at least you don't have to pay!
            So this strange thing can accomplish two things. First, avoid paying. Second, force many to do it, and then force those many to pay! It's not about weapons at all, but it is the main goal...
            1. 0
              22 June 2026 15: 57
              Maybe so, but it’s still somehow strange.
      2. 0
        21 June 2026 14: 28
        Quote: garri-lin
        The question is different. How can a two-piece cartridge case made of different materials be stronger than a solid-drawn one?

        If the load on the sleeve is uneven, and its maximum falls on the base, then why not?
        1. 0
          21 June 2026 20: 43
          Well, the load on the sleeve is already uneven. But making a weld at the point of minimal load is expensive and creates unnecessary weakness. It's easier and cheaper to make the wall thicker. In the problem area.
          1. +1
            21 June 2026 20: 59
            Quote: garri-lin
            Well, the load on the sleeve is already uneven. But making a weld at the point of minimal load is expensive and creates unnecessary weakness. It's easier and cheaper to make the wall thicker. In the problem area.

            Recently they wrote here that they came up with some kind of "steel alloy" for this purpose. Yes
        2. +1
          22 June 2026 08: 28
          Quote from cpls22
          Quote: garri-lin
          The question is different. How can a two-piece cartridge case made of different materials be stronger than a solid-drawn one?

          If the load on the sleeve is uneven, and its maximum falls on the base, then why not?

          Because if that's the case, the base will tear off. The joint is where the strength transition occurs, meaning that's where the maximum load will be concentrated.
    2. IVZ
      +1
      21 June 2026 10: 13
      Yes, I think that this (a steel sleeve) is where it will end, if the story continues and develops.
      1. 0
        21 June 2026 10: 22
        Until the US engages in a real war with real ammunition consumption, the outcome could go either way. Typically, arsenals are replenished not with the best weapons, but with those that yield the highest yields. But here, there's plenty of scope—the production equipment requires unique equipment, R&D for another thirty years, testing, and bam...
        Now, if Trump invades Iran and gets his ass kicked, then yes, the all-steel shell will probably win.
    3. 0
      21 June 2026 11: 58
      The downside of a steel case is poorer accuracy. It's impossible to squeeze less than 3 minutes of range (9 cm at 100 meters) out of an AK-74, and the entire NGSW program was apparently built around the idea that the scope would give the shooter new capabilities.
      At the same time, an awkward trigger can negatively impact accuracy. I haven't fired the M4 specifically, but all the reviewers claim the trigger is awkward. On ARs from various manufacturers I've shot, the stock trigger is much worse than the AK's. A trigger can be quickly fixed by replacing it, but who would do that in the army?
      1. IVZ
        +2
        21 June 2026 13: 58
        The disadvantage of a steel case is the lower accuracy of the cartridges.
        Something new. How does case material affect the heap? Please be frank.
  5. 0
    21 June 2026 11: 50
    It's high time to replace the 7.62x54 with something more interesting. I think the 6.5x49 Creedmoor is just right. It might also make sense to create a heavy company machine gun and sniper rifle chambered for .338 (8,6 x 63 mm) Norma Magnum.
    1. IVZ
      0
      21 June 2026 20: 23
      You're thinking exactly like the Americans. Your thoughts are almost entirely consistent. The .338LM is much more effective for a sniper rifle, especially since we've mastered production of the cartridge and could possibly be brought up to the required specifications. And the 9,3x64mm round could be used as a machine gun cartridge. It was developed on the Brenneke base in sniper (it never became a sniper) and machine gun versions, and I believe it was also produced.
  6. -1
    21 June 2026 13: 12
    The solution to this problem isn't a firearm. Firearms today are used for personal defense, like officers' pistols. And, of course, for police operations and sweeps.

    If light infantry is forced to use 5,65mm, then the supply of modern weapons and the command are worthless.
    1. IVZ
      +1
      21 June 2026 15: 09
      So, cleanup is the final stage of any successful operation.
  7. 0
    22 June 2026 08: 52
    Fedorov also spoke about the need for an intermediate cartridge in the army, and what happened???? Things are still the same, even though more than a hundred years have passed. The 6.5mm caliber is still relevant, where 7.62mm is excessive and 5.45mm is insufficient. With today's bureaucracy, Russia will likely be playing catch-up again.
    1. VlK
      -1
      22 June 2026 11: 28
      We still have the 7,62x54 cartridge, a late 19th-century rimmed cartridge. We're probably the last in the world to still use this technology, which was outdated back in the same century. So, what's surprising?
      1. +1
        22 June 2026 17: 00
        Hello. Well, it's not really a surprise (7.62x54), but rather a successful cartridge. Regarding the case flange... Many weapon designs have been developed specifically for it, so it seems this cartridge will see several generations to come.
        1. VlK
          +1
          24 June 2026 13: 25
          For some reason, all industrialized countries switched from their already quite successful rimmed cartridges to grooved cases at the first opportunity, and the older models of weapons adopted into service didn't stop them—they simply tied the process to rearmament with a new mass-produced model. It's just that in our country, we're always faced with force majeure circumstances—either World War I, the Civil War, post-war devastation, accelerated preparations for World War II, the Great Patriotic War, post-war devastation, and so on... Although, launching the 7,62x39 with a groove from scratch wouldn't have been difficult, would it?
          1. 0
            24 June 2026 13: 52
            I don't know what to say. I know few facts, the most important of which are economic ones: the cost of switching to a different cartridge (cartridge development, production upgrades, or the entire production cycle), the state of the country's economy at the time when other countries were switching to a different cartridge. Legislative restrictions and government requirements are also factors. It still seems to me that the main factors behind the longevity of the 7.62x54 cartridge are its economics and characteristics.
            1. VlK
              0
              24 June 2026 15: 02
              It still seems to me that the main component of the longevity of the 7.62*54 cartridge is the economy and characteristics of the cartridge.
              That's probably true—they still haven't seen any significant technical or economic advantage to switching to a new rifle-machine gun cartridge, even in the prosperous 70s and 80s. So, out of inertia, we'll cling to compatibility with older cartridges and equipment to the bitter end, even though they're reporting that propellant powder loads fluctuate and the overall quality of the ammunition is so-so—the ammunition factories' equipment is old and worn out, so why not replace it while the opportunity presents itself?
  8. +1
    22 June 2026 09: 51
    Quote: andrewkor
    During the Great Patriotic War, Soviet 82mm mortars successfully fired captured 81mm mortar shells, but the Germans could not fire ours.

    The Germans simply used our captured mortars.
  9. 0
    22 June 2026 20: 33
    Compared to drones, it's just a waste of money. Who needs it now, when a single fighter has a dozen drones following him?
  10. 0
    29 June 2026 14: 22
    From my couch, I think the 6mm ARC, which was adopted by the Juice, is more promising. It's lighter, slightly slower, and has a power output somewhere between intermediate and rifle level. It's based on a Grendel case (our M43). For long ranges, the 6.5mm Creedmoor is a better choice.
    If our 6.02x41 is similar to 6mm ARC and goes into service, then it will turn out that at least our people are thinking with their heads.
  11. 0
    22 July 2026 13: 45
    The new cartridge is practically no better than the old 7.62x51 NATO. The Americans will struggle with it for 10 years and then return to 6mm intermediate cartridges, leaving the 6.8x51 as a machine gun and sniper rifle cartridge. It's even better for us – they'll spend a lot of time and money realizing their mistake.