The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Laurie wrote:

Well, we're party at this point because of the Geneva convention's ban on expanding ammo in war (though given no declaration of war has been issued in forever for anything I'd argue the validity of the convention today with mostly non-uniformed enemies). It boils down to not having a perfect round for anything as nothing of the sort exists with that Status Quo in place. [Sixshot6]

Ah, but there is more than one way to skin a cat! It took nearly 20 years feom the original 303's introduction, but the 174gn MkVII .303 bullet of 1910-1957 is a really vicious killer. Base heavy, longish fragile thin-jacket nose, large empty space in the nose with a lightweight wood fibre filler packed in. Specifically designed to tumble quickly on striking animal (ie human) tissue and chew a large hole in the recipient. Who says the Brits were 'good guys' in that era? It met the letter of the Hague Convention but got around the spirit. Not that we were alone - the German 8mm Spitzgeschoss at a higher velocity than the Brit bullet did the same thing, only likely more so. It was only people like the Swedes who were unlikely to fire shots in anger who stuck with long tough round-nose bullets and even they changed to lighter Spitzers in the '30s.

It's all nonsense anyway. As military firearms student and historian Ian V. Hogg once asked, what was the sense or morality of a little non expanding jacketed bullet when all nations were simultaneously developing large calibre artillery pieces whose shells were packed with ever larger amounts of increasingly energetic explosives and which produced a hail or supersonic whirling metal shards any single one of which can do the most terrible damage to the human body? The Hague Protocols were only initiated and voted through by continental European nations jealous of the extent of GB's overseas colonies and thought it clever to make like difficult for Der Englander ven das Zulu angriff machen (pardon for the atrocious German).

As for the 5.56, yes well what can you say apart from when US Army policymakers say 'Jump!', the rest of Nato moans, groans, argues but eventually responds 'How high?'. As Meles Meles points out, the British War Office 'Ideal Calibre Panel' and various other British Army bodies asked the right questions over 1947-50, got the right answers, and came up with the closest compromise to the 'right answer' we'll likely ever see.

Howver, with the US military currently upgrading existing M4s to M4A1 status and placing large orders for new examples - a third of a million plus weapons in total - the chances of Nato adopting any other cartridge in the foreseeable future is nil, so any German, French, or British infantry rifle replacement is going to be 5.56mm come what may. The M4 / M16 'platform' is so restrictive that the largest altenatives it can accept are 6.5 Grendel / 6.8mm SPC size, much smaller and thinner than the old 280/30 British.

Strangely though I believe 6.8 spc was inspired by 280 british to a degree and Bill Alexander being an Engineer born in the UK must have in the back of his thought of the 280 British when he helped work on the 6.5 Grendel? I think for now, its 5.56mm rifles for the infantry and giving a DMR rifle like the LMT to best shot in the Platoon. Maybe upgrade to something more like the 77 grainers? And yes that element of the Geneva Convention showed what utter Balocks it was. But life is full of people talking out of the proverbial and doing stupid things sadly. Just look at what started the War of Spanish Succession and how they still ended up with a Bourbon on the Spanish throne. I believe the Hague Conventions also led to the end of dum dum .455 webley rounds which once again was a joke compared to what else what around at the time.

User702 wrote:I don't really see how you can say the M4/AR platform is that restrictive... In fact, I seem to remember a company making a replacement upper receiver for the M4 platform that could accept the. 50 Beowolf calibre and there is cefinitely a conversion kit for an AR thatballows you to shoot 7.62x39.

1) the 7.62X39mm case-head is the largest diameter (0.445") that the standard AR bolt can be opened up to. Colt developed a 7.62X39 conversion for the platform. Users, civilian and military, found that it so undercut the base of the locking lugs that lug failure occurred after a few thousand rounds were fired. Advice to anybody contemplating this adaptation is change the bolt at a set round count as a matter of routine before the breakage is likely to occur. Since weapons don't have the round-count equivalents of vehicle mileometers this creates major problems for military armourers even in peacetime and an impossible reliability issue under wartime conditions. Hence 7.62X39 M16/M4s have only ever been adopted for Special-Ops deployment and with some reluctance at that.

2) The .30 Remington case based 6.8mm SPC with its 0.422" nominal rim and lower body diameters was found to be the fattest cartridge body that can be accommodated in the platform and retain reliable double stack magazine operation. Even at that, it requires a redesigned magazine made in a different more expensive method - edge to edge butt welding of parts not overlap joints with spot welds. The last few thousands of an inch of internal room is required to accommodate even this size of cartridge.

3) the AR magazine well length is designed for a maximum COAL of 2.26". A true intermediate cartridge such as the 280/30 British whose performance falls betwen that of the too small calibre / underpowered 5.56 and oversize calibre far too powerful 7.62X51mm needs around 2.5 inches - which by coincidence (not) is just short of what US XTC Service Rifle competitors load their 80gn .223 Rem rounds to for single-loading in the 600 yard competition stage.

4) The Beowulf etc - even the much smaller .30AR Remington - use limited capacity single stack magazines. To put it bluntly, the Beowulf is a rich kid's toy, at best a Special-Ops tool. It's limited to 33,000 psi MAP to keep stresses on the bolt head down, uses the weaker 7.62X39mm bolt face, and has the external ballistics of the .45-70. It uses a rebated rim cartridge case design as per the Grendel which poses mass production issues and was designed as a very special purpose high-momentum short-range round. Here's what the Wikipedia summary says of its limitations:


Design and specifications[edit]

The cartridge utilizes a rebated rim, sized to match the rim of the 7.62×39mm and 6.5 mm Grendel rounds. The case body is very similar in dimensions to the .500 S&W Magnum revolver cartridge, being slightly longer and fully tapered for automatic feeding in the weapon.

The round is intended to improve stopping power greatly at short- to medium-range as compared to the standard 5.56×45mm NATO round. One of its advertised uses is at vehicle checkpoints, since the heavy bullet's flight path is not easily deflected by auto glass or standard vehicle body panels.

Design limitations[edit]

With normal bullet weights between 300 and 400 grains (19 and 26 g), overall cartridge length shorter than that of an AR-15 magazine well, and holding to pressures of 33,000 psi limited by the AR bolt strength system,[2] the .50 Beowulf is best described as a low-velocity, heavy caliber, making its ballistics roughly equivalent to those of early .45-70 Government rounds rather than the higher pressure rounds tolerated by modern lever action rifles such as the Marlin Model 1895.[3] Adaptability is limited due to its use of the 7.62×39mm bolt face.[4]

The needs of an army for hundreds of thousands of dead reliable weapons that go on and on under adverse conditions with minimal armourer attention during wartime conditions in extreme temperatures mud, snow, sand, make things like Beowulf calibre ARs a dangerous liability - that's why no army adopts them despite all the hype and promises from manufacturers and promoters. Anything adopted has to be ammunition tolerant too - in wartime ammo production is ramped up dramatically and standards sometimes drop off badly. Research the Canadian WW1 .303 Ross rifle - and if you can get it THAT wrong with a manually operated design, you can make a much worse, much more deadly b+lls-up with a selective fire weapon and its extra complexities and needs.

Great video Fedaykin. I don't think he fires it full-auto - I wonder why. apart from it being an irreplaceable item worth a fortune, anyway!

Enfield only made a handful of 7.62X51mm versions for the final series of NATO cartridge / weapons trials held in the USA if I remember rightly. The original intention was to have a single standard NATO rifle alongside the cartridge, but even with the USA calling the shots, adoption of the T44 which became the M14 was too much for European members to accept. EM2 died as the cartridge was simply too powerful for it and the FAL which had started out as a true lightweight assault rifle in 1947 chambered for the WW2 German 7.92X33mm, controllable selective fire too, became an overweight over-long number permanently locked into semi-auto. [Sigh!]

Fedaykin wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wdhN5_RpX4

I see you're a Forgotten Weapons Fan too.

Laurie wrote:Great video Fedaykin. I don't think he fires it full-auto - I wonder why. apart from it being an irreplaceable item worth a fortune, anyway!

Enfield only made a handful of 7.62X51mm versions for the final series of NATO cartridge / weapons trials held in the USA if I remember rightly. The original intention was to have a single standard NATO rifle alongside the cartridge, but even with the USA calling the shots, adoption of the T44 which became the M14 was too much for European members to accept. EM2 died as the cartridge was simply too powerful for it and the FAL which had started out as a true lightweight assault rifle in 1947 chambered for the WW2 German 7.92X33mm, controllable selective fire too, became an overweight over-long number permanently locked into semi-auto. [Sigh!]

Well with US laws on full auto ownership since 1986 and no new register one's allowed, its likely somebody's pride and joy. If it were your's you'd be saying don't put it under too much pressure, its irreplaceable.

Laurie wrote:

User702 wrote:I don't really see how you can say the M4/AR platform is that restrictive... In fact, I seem to remember a company making a replacement upper receiver for the M4 platform that could accept the. 50 Beowolf calibre and there is cefinitely a conversion kit for an AR thatballows you to shoot 7.62x39.

1) the 7.62X39mm case-head is the largest diameter (0.445") that the standard AR bolt can be opened up to. Colt developed a 7.62X39 conversion for the platform. Users, civilian and military, found that it so undercut the base of the locking lugs that lug failure occurred after a few thousand rounds were fired. Advice to anybody contemplating this adaptation is change the bolt at a set round count as a matter of routine before the breakage is likely to occur. Since weapons don't have the round-count equivalents of vehicle mileometers this creates major problems for military armourers even in peacetime and an impossible reliability issue under wartime conditions. Hence 7.62X39 M16/M4s have only ever been adopted for Special-Ops deployment and with some reluctance at that.

2) The .30 Remington case based 6.8mm SPC with its 0.422" nominal rim and lower body diameters was found to be the fattest cartridge body that can be accommodated in the platform and retain reliable double stack magazine operation. Even at that, it requires a redesigned magazine made in a different more expensive method - edge to edge butt welding of parts not overlap joints with spot welds. The last few thousands of an inch of internal room is required to accommodate even this size of cartridge.

3) the AR magazine well length is designed for a maximum COAL of 2.26". A true intermediate cartridge such as the 280/30 British whose performance falls betwen that of the too small calibre / underpowered 5.56 and oversize calibre far too powerful 7.62X51mm needs around 2.5 inches - which by coincidence (not) is just short of what US XTC Service Rifle competitors load their 80gn .223 Rem rounds to for single-loading in the 600 yard competition stage.

4) The Beowulf etc - even the much smaller .30AR Remington - use limited capacity single stack magazines. To put it bluntly, the Beowulf is a rich kid's toy, at best a Special-Ops tool. It's limited to 33,000 psi MAP to keep stresses on the bolt head down, uses the weaker 7.62X39mm bolt face, and has the external ballistics of the .45-70. It uses a rebated rim cartridge case design as per the Grendel which poses mass production issues and was designed as a very special purpose high-momentum short-range round. Here's what the Wikipedia summary says of its limitations:


Design and specifications[edit]

The cartridge utilizes a rebated rim, sized to match the rim of the 7.62×39mm and 6.5 mm Grendel rounds. The case body is very similar in dimensions to the .500 S&W Magnum revolver cartridge, being slightly longer and fully tapered for automatic feeding in the weapon.

The round is intended to improve stopping power greatly at short- to medium-range as compared to the standard 5.56×45mm NATO round. One of its advertised uses is at vehicle checkpoints, since the heavy bullet's flight path is not easily deflected by auto glass or standard vehicle body panels.

Design limitations[edit]

With normal bullet weights between 300 and 400 grains (19 and 26 g), overall cartridge length shorter than that of an AR-15 magazine well, and holding to pressures of 33,000 psi limited by the AR bolt strength system,[2] the .50 Beowulf is best described as a low-velocity, heavy caliber, making its ballistics roughly equivalent to those of early .45-70 Government rounds rather than the higher pressure rounds tolerated by modern lever action rifles such as the Marlin Model 1895.[3] Adaptability is limited due to its use of the 7.62×39mm bolt face.[4]

The needs of an army for hundreds of thousands of dead reliable weapons that go on and on under adverse conditions with minimal armourer attention during wartime conditions in extreme temperatures mud, snow, sand, make things like Beowulf calibre ARs a dangerous liability - that's why no army adopts them despite all the hype and promises from manufacturers and promoters. Anything adopted has to be ammunition tolerant too - in wartime ammo production is ramped up dramatically and standards sometimes drop off badly. Research the Canadian WW1 .303 Ross rifle - and if you can get it THAT wrong with a manually operated design, you can make a much worse, much more deadly b+lls-up with a selective fire weapon and its extra complexities and needs.

This all boils down to, the situation is crap, but could be worse. We are stuck with 5.56 for the foreseeable future, certainly my reading of history and my on the fritz crystal ball told me that .

An increase to the terminal ballistics, by a similar improvement to the ammunition as is the case with the US limited issue Mk.262 round (with the 77grn SMK bullets) would be a good interim move.

Not an unknown or unheard of change to platform concept...given the initial issue M193 round of 55grn, which then morphed into the Belgian inspired SS109 of 63grn.
The history of a lot of issue calibers has seen similar projectile "fine tuning" as service conditions changed...

That said...myself & SimG would probably laugh ourselves into an early grave if 6.8 got adopted. All that mil-surp for our LTRs!

I'd vote for an EM-2, in 6.8
Get the presses dusted off and start stamping them out!

I also forgot to add but doesn't the adoption by the then Soviet block countries of 5.45x39 and China of its 5.8x42mm cartridge show that they have similar ideas and needs to ours?

ordnance wrote: Why was it the best option. ? I would see the disadvantages as , questionable reliability, poor balance , terrible ergonomics, not able to be shot left handed, poor trigger, heavier than the competition. What are its good points. ?

Pull up a sandbag, ooman, and listen...

Firstly, reliability. It worked irrespective of whether it was covered in mud, sand, water or a mix of all three. Try trogging through the Shatt al Arab marshes all day and keeping it clean when you're being shot at. It worked when others rifles didn't: we had US, Dutch and Spanish troops serving alongside and they all envied its reliability. You may not want to hear that.

Secondly, accuracy. It has a tendency to hit what its fired at, within range limitations, i.e. it's good enough for 500 mard engagements. (Your accuracy may vary, particularly on a two way range.)

Poor balance ? Try using it properly. Yes, it's poor for drill. In combat the weight is where it needs to be, close in. It's easy to carry, especially in CCW*. See comment about accuracy above.

Terrible ergonomics? Only for drill. It's short and easy to climb in and out of vehicles (OTC**, wok-woks or CRA***) , very quickly, with. It's short and so easy to point in close confines. Try fighting room to room or in narrow alleys in an Arab town with something longer. It's short and heavy, pretty good in a room to room bayonet fight.

Poor trigger ? It's not an F class target rifle. When the adrenaline is flowing and the targets are shooting back, our paw / eye co-ordination and fine motor control is almost certainly a little less honed than yours might be at Bisley. The trigger does the job well enough, even when coated in silt. You may not want to hear that.

Can't fire it left pawed ? Agreed. It's not perfect. Its day has passed: it could do with scrapping and replacing by the EM-2.




*CCW: Combat Cotton Wool
**OTC: Open Top Coffin
***CRA: Craft, Rigid, Assault