Toward a 600 m lightweight General Purpose Cartridge

Emeric DANIAU, DGA Techniques Terrestres, Bourges.

[email protected]

Part one: the long trend in Individual Weapons

th

From the beginning of small-arms to the 19 century, the development of hand-held weapons was
driven by the need i) to increase the safety and reliability ii) to increase the practical range and iii) to
increase the practical rate of fire.
Safety and reliability was the first field of improvement, with the introduction of the matchlock, flintlock
and percussion caps, along with improved quality controls for the black powder.
Evolution of the individual weapon's practical range, against a 1.6 m standing man in average wind
conditions, and practical rate of fire (RoF) is given in Figure 1. Weapons that actually entered into
service are symbolized by a green dot and a black label; unsuccessful programs are symbolized by a
red tag and a red label and will be detailed in this paper because unsuccessful programs provide
valuable information.
1909 Rifle Program

Mle 1917
Mle 49
FSA 7.62 mm

Mle 1898D
Mle 1907-15
Mle 1886M

Mle 1866

Mle 1874

FAMAS
1979

1985
MSD rifle
PUC600
PUC300

1917-1918
Ribeyrolles carbine
Mle 1857

Figure 1: Evolution of the range and rate of fire of individual weapons used by the French army during the
last 150 years

The pre WWI industrial era

After the rifled barrel came into general use, there was little to do to increase the practical range apart
from increasing the muzzle velocity (a solid way to reduce the projectile time of flight to the target).
The introduction of streamlined bullets in 1898 with the balle D was the last improvement, reducing
the projectile time of flight (ToF) without increasing the muzzle velocity.
The continuous reduction in bore diameter (and projectile weight) was a simple measure to avoid
increasing the recoil and the gun weight.
In France, the rifle bore diameter decreased from 17.8 mm in 1857 (32 g bullet, recoil of 12.4 N.s), to
i

11 mm in 1866 (25 g bullet and 14.1 N.s) and 8 mm in 1886 (15 g bullet and 12.3 N.s) .
During this time, the practical range against a 1.6 m standing man under average wind conditions
steadily increased from ~230 m to ~510 m.
The introduction of the balle D in 1898 by Desaleux and Arthus was no small achievement. The
trajectory improvement of the Mle 1898 D bullet compared to the Mle 1886 M was of the same order
as the improvement of the Mle 1886 M compared to the Mle 1874, with just the need to change the
ii

iron sight calibration .

Supersonic aerodynamics was an unknown field at this time and the development of the balle D was
an iterative process; the final design was n139.
Increasing the rate of fire was not so straightforward and involved the introduction of:
self-contained cartridge (first made of combustible paper in 1866, then the metallic cartridge
in 1874 that also acts as an expendable chamber seal, increasing the gun's safety and
reliability),
breech-loader (introduced with the self-contained cartridge in 1866),
manually operated repeater (in 1886),
fixed box magazine (loaded with 3-round and 5-round clips),
detachable box magazine (as opposed to tubular and fixed box magazines),
semi-automatic repeater.
Against large bodies of troops moving in compact formations (as in, for example, the Transvaal
campaign), more than 50% of firefights occurred at what we now call long range (between 900 m and
2100 m); only 25% occurred at ranges shorter than 900 m (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Engagement distances during the 1880-1900 period according to Wolozko and battlefield depth
according to Bircher.

iii

According to J.B.A. Bailey , in the sixty years preceding 1914, artillery fire produced less than 10
percent of all battle casualties, the remaining 90 percent fell to small arms (mostly individual
weapons), whose range and accuracy had come to rival those of artillery. This estimation is supported
iv

by medical and after-battle reports available from that era ,

But the introduction of shells loaded with high-explosives (instead of black-powder) around 1890, the
invention of reliable impact fuses, the development of rapid-firing guns like the famous French 75 mm
Mle 1897 (with an oleo-pneumatic recoil-absorbing mount) and mathematic models for direct and
indirect fire solutions (increasing dramatically the hit probability of long-range gunnery) during the
same period radically changed the way armies were fighting, and it was anticipated (even before WWI)
iv

that artillery fire could produce as much as 40-50 percent of overall casualties in future conflicts .

A first dead-end, the semi-automatic rifle program of 1909

In France, this trend toward more firepower, delivered at the longest possible range, should have
v

reached its apex just before WWI with the 1909 rifle program .
The goal of this program was to replace the tubular magazine Mle 1886 bolt-action repeater (mostly
used as a single shot rifle, the awkward-to-refill tubular magazine was used only in an emergency)
with a box-magazine semi-auto rifle shooting a new ammunition that should have a 800 m point-blank
range against a 1.6 m standing man. The minimum bullet diameter was set at 6.5 mm. Smaller
diameter (6 mm) cartridges were also studied between 1890 and 1906 with muzzle velocities from
x

700 m/s (1895 STA cartridge, firing a 6.65 g copper bullet ) to 850 m/s (in 1899), and finally 900 m/s
(in 1906) but discarded due to their inadequate long-range performance when the muzzle velocity was
low, and dramatic accuracy reduction during sustained fire when the muzzle velocity was high enough.
Preliminary calculations and experiments, using a bullet shape similar to the German S flat-base
bullet, shown that a V25 velocity higher than 1015 m/s was required. After a lot of work on various

6.5 mm and 7 mm cartridges with different case capacities (body diameter of 12.5 mm and 13 mm,
length around 59-61 mm) and geometries (shoulder angle up to 40 half-angle were tested), efforts
were finally focused (but not before December 1913) on one 6.5 mm cartridge (~6.8 g steel-brass
bullet, loaded with 4.1 g mel.107 ter powder) and one 7 mm cartridge (~7.6 g soft steel bullet, loaded
with 3.6 g of mel. 105 powder)

vi, x

. Both cartridges used a unusually large 13 mm body diameter

(compared to 12 mm for the 8 mm Mauser line of cartridges and 12.6 mm for the Swiss GP11) and a
3

length around 59 mm and 61 mm, with a case capacity in the vicinity of 4.5 cm (69 gr of water).
The 1909 program was not successful because even though the required ammunition performance
was actually achieved (but not before the end of 1913 - beginning of 1914, and the availability of
vi

improved BN3F powders ), the required practical rate of fire (20 rpm) never was, due to weapon
overheating.
Instead, an updated version of the balle D (called n405) with a steel core, a weight of 11 g and a V25
of 840 m/s when loaded with 3.30 g of 19-RA-36 quater powder should have been issued at the end
of 1914, but WWI broke out before formal adoption.
The semi-auto Meunier A6 rifle selected for service in 1913 was actually produced and used in limited
numbers during WWI, but firing a more practical downloaded 7 x 56.95 mm cartridge (9 g type 307
bullet and 3.2 g of powder) instead of the high intensity 7 x 59 mm (powder load of 3.6 g).
Like all bullets developed in France before WWI, the type 307 bullet (37 mm long, 60 % ogive height
and 23 % boat-tail) did not use a lead core with a gliding metal jacket structure, but instead was coldpressed like the Mle 1898 D.
In contrast to the Mle 1898 D, this bullet was not monolithic but used a soft-steel core like the bimtal bullets developed by the Ecole Normale de Tir (E.N.T, more on this topic later), but in this
case the steel core was fully enclosed (Figure 3) instead of having the tip exposed (Figure 5).

Figure 3: the final version of the balle 307 used in the 7 x 56.95 mm cartridge for the Meunier A6
(drawing on the right courtesy of J. Huon).

Post WWI
WWI saw (indirect) artillery fire replacing (direct) long-range small arms fire in its battlefield
effectiveness and this trend continued well after the end of the war.
During WWII, small-arms fire (including individual weapons and machine guns) produced between 2/3
of enemy casualties (when fire support was lacking), and sometimes less than 1/3.
With effective long range fire achieved by HE effects (artillery, tanks and planes), there was a huge
pressure to reduce the practical range of weapons (or at least, no need to try to increase it) in order to
increase still further the practical RoF.

A second dead-end, the Ribeyrolles blow-back carbine

The unsuccessful Ribeyrolles carbine of 1917-1918 (firing the 8 mm Ribeyrolles, a.k.a 8 x 35 mm SR)
was an attempt to develop a rapid-firing weapon using a simple blowback system. The parent
cartridge was the .351 WSL (which saw service in the French army during WWI) necked-down to
vii

8 mm and loaded with the AP bullet developed for the Mle 1886 P cartridge (weight 9.6 g , length
viii

32.5 mm, powder weight 0.90 g ). Due to the long ogive of this bullet (24.5 mm, the same as the Mle
1898 D), the cartridge length was 59 mm.

Figure 4: Drawing of the bullet for the 8 mm Mle 1886 P cartridge.

ix

According to the French literature of this time , the next generation of small-arms ammunition
intended for the individual weapon (IW) would need to be as light as possible and duplicate the
external ballistics of the Mle 1898 D up to 600 m (a large change from previous WWI papers on the
x

same topic that asked for a 800 m point blank range, when just after WWI duplicating the external
ballistics of old Mle 1886 M ammunition up to 500 m was still considered adequate). The requirement
for a simple blowback operation was thought to limit the maximum chamber pressure to around
1500 kg/cm and the muzzle velocity to 500 m/s for an 8 g to 10 g bullet. The parent .351 WSL
cartridge delivered an MV of 570 m/s (out of a 508 mm barrel) with an 11.7 g bullet.

Using the Powley computer and a case capacity of 23.1 grains / 1.5 g (16.1 grains / 1.04 g net) to
emulate the 0.90 g powder load used at this time, indicates that a pressure of 35,500 CUP
(39,000 psi, 2740 kg/cm) was required to obtain an MV of 500 m/s with a 9.6 g bullet and a 450 mm
barrel, far from the envisioned 1500 kg/cm but in fact identical to the operating pressure of the
351 WSL.
The 300 m impact energy of the 8 mm Ribeyrolles should have been close to 550 J (using a G6
ballistic coefficient - BC - of .22), around of the Mle 1886 P rifle ammunition that used the same
bullet (and less than of the current 5.56 mm SS-109), and the effective range against a 1.6 m
standing man would have been no more than 440-450 m even without taking into account the
probable large accuracy loss due to the transition from supersonic to subsonic velocity at a range less
than 300 m.
The carbine itself (5.1 kg without magazine) was much heavier than the 4 kg that was considered the
desirable weight of an individual weapon.
Even if this round was not successful, the concept of a large and light-for-diameter bullet pushed into
a small case was not without merits as shown by the current (and very similar) .300 AAC Blackout
(7.62 x 35 mm), based on the shortened .223 Remington case family (incidentally, sharing the same
body diameter as the .351 WSL and with a similar case capacity, ~25 gr / 1.6 g, to the 8 mm
Ribeyrolles) necked up to .30 calibre and using bullet weights of between 7.45 g and 8.1 g. The
higher pressure of the .300 AAC (used in gas operated weapons) allowing a higher muzzle velocity
(~675-700 m/s in a ~400 mm barrel) and a slightly longer practical range, mostly due to a supersonic
range of ~450 m vs. ~280 m for the 8 mm.

A third dead-end, the end of the first lead-free bullet

Since 1894 and the first studies by Captain Desaleux of 6 mm brass bullets followed by the adoption
of the balle D in 1898, every bullet used in French experimental cartridges before WWI was made of
cold-pressed brass, or cold-pressed brass with a soft steel core (called bimtal bullets and
developed by the Ecole Normale de Tir de Chlons; in Figure 5, the 2 bullets on the left with exposed
steel tips and the next with a fully enclosed steel core). Steel core bullets with steel jackets and
homogeneous steel bullets were also tested (Figure 5, bullet n4, 5 & 6 from the left), with less
success.

Figure 5: Some French experimental bullets used during the 1909 program; Left from right: short 6.5 mm
bimtal (length 32.5 mm, weight ~6.7 g); long 6.5 mm bimtal, (length 37 mm, weight ~7.6 g); 6.5 mm steel
core, (length 36 mm, weight ~7.7 g); two 7 x 59 mm steel bullets (weight ~7.6 g) and two 7 x 56.95 mm
Meunier bullets (courtesy of Y. Etievant).

Following external ballistics studies made in 1894 and 1895 with lathe turned bullets (according to
nd

th

"notes de la commission de Versailles dated from 1894 October 2 , 1895 January 17 , 1895 Mai 13
th

th

ii

and 1895 September 4 ", written by Captain Desaleux ) the development of what would become
known as the balle D started in 1896, with 5 cold-pressed bullets (called A, B, C, D and E) having the
same shape but made of different materials.
The best bullet was the D version made with 90/10 brass, with a 2.5 calibres ogive height and a
weight of 13.2 g. Soon, a variant of this bullet (known as the n66) with a 3 calibres ogive height was
made at the request of Captain Arthus and this bullet demonstrated a better trajectory than the original
D bullet, but was found unsatisfactory when manufactured from a cold-pressing process.
At the end of 1896 the adoption of the D bullet was thought to be imminent, but some modifications
were made to adopt the 3 calibres ogive height of the n66 bullet, but with an oversized ogive base
diameter (8.30 mm min, 8.35 mm max and 8.32 mm average) for better in-bore sealing, leading to the
n139 bullet. An ultimate variant with a longer boat-tail and reduced shank (bullet n142) was tried but
sometimes did not take the rifling properly and the 12.8 g balle D (n139) was finally approved for
production in January 1898.

xi

Figure 6: Sequence of operations for manufacturing the balle D (n139)

The bullet was manufactured from a 90/10 (copper and zinc) brass rod (diameter between 7.32 mm
xii

and 7.36 mm), with the addition of 0.4 % of lead and 0.4 % of tin , but during WWI pure copper was
also used.
xiii

Material acceptance test were very similar to those of common 90/10 brass used for bullets jackets ,
with a minimum tensile strength of 25 kg/mm and an elongation limit of more than 42 % for a 100 mm
long test piece, without flaws, cracks or spots.
Another experience from WWI not forgotten by the French army was that using main components as
specific as the cold-pressed brass bullet Mle 1898 D was not a good idea. Even if during the war, the
daily production figure of this cartridge ran between 2.65 million rounds (during November 1914) and
7.7 million (during August 1917, production peak), and that total war production of the Mle 1898 D in
xiv

France was 6,812,894,087 rounds , the various experiments to manufacture this ammunition outside
France (in the US for example) were not very successful. Combined with large and unpredictable
effects on barrel life (the APX HMG had a reported barrel life of 6000 rounds with the original Mle 1886
M bullet, but only 2000 rounds with the Mle 1898 D bullet, while the Hotchkiss HMG, using the same

xv

steel and rifling, but a different gas port location, had a reported barrel life of 15 000 rounds ), it was
decided that the new round would need to use a conventional lead-core FMJ bullet.
There was also the question of the ammunition compatibility. During WWI, the various French bolt
action rifle (Mle 1886, Mle 07-15-16), semi-automatic rifle (CSR 1917), fully-automatic rifle (CSRG
1915) and MG (Hotchkiss 1914, APX and St-Etienne 1907) all fired the same 8 mm ammunition, but
reducing the effective range of the IW to 600 m could require the use of different cartridges for the IW
and for the MG.
The final choice was to adopt the 7.5 x 54 mm, firing a 9 g lead core FMJ bullet (Mle 1924 C, Figure 7
left) loaded with 3.1 g of powder for the individual weapon and automatic rifle (V25 of >800 m/s), and a
heavier 12.35 g bullet (Mle 1933 D, Figure 7 middle) with a V25 of 694 m/s (closely following the
external ballistics of the much revered Mle 1898 D bullet) for the MG devoted to the artillery role.
At the same time, the 8 mm 12.8 g Mle 1898 D was superseded by the 15 g Mle 1932 N (Figure 7
right) lead core bullet fired at 715 m/s muzzle velocity (G1 BC of ~0.7 compared to ~0.6 for the Mle
1898 D bullet), providing even longer range and accuracy

xvi

Figure 7: French military lead-core bullets developed after WWI.

It should be noted that if the French 7.5 mm cartridge design heavily borrowed from the Swiss 7.5 x 55
mm, the decision to use 2 different loads and bullet weight (9 g flat-base bullet for infantry weapons
and 12.35 g boat-tail bullet for artillery weapons) is different from the Swiss choice to use only one
load (with a 11.3 g boat-tail bullet).
The German army followed a different path. They first developed the light (10 g) flat-base S bullet in
1905, then the heavy (12.8 g) boat-tail s.S bullet for long-range MG use during WWI and finally used
the s.S as a general purpose round.

Finally, the manufacture of the heavy Mle 1933 D bullet was stopped shortly after WWII and only the
light Mle 1924 C remained during the 50s and 60s.

Post WWII
The experience of infantry engagements during WWII and the Korean war (high intensity wars) was
reviewed in the US and the famous Hitchman report

xvii

concluded that since most (~90 %) infantry

engagements occured at a maximum range of 300 yards (274 m) and hit effectiveness with US M1
Garand rifle was satisfactory only up to 100 yards (91 m), a way to increase the individual weapon
overall effectiveness (up to 300 yards) was to reduce the bullet and cartridge weight and use a
pattern dispersion principle (controlled burst fired in full-auto mode) to compensate for human aiming
errors. The addition of a toxic agent to the bullet (to increase the lethality) was also proposed.
The parallel work

xviii

on a small-calibre, high velocity (SCHC) cartridge, using a 5.56 mm bullet

launched at a very high velocity (1030 - 1200 m/s) indicated that a large reduction in ammunition
weight and recoil could be achieved without decreasing hit probability or incapacitation capability
against dismounted soldiers.
Other factors accounting for the military effectiveness of the IW round, such as suppression effect
and intermediate barrier penetration, were not taken into account.
Before the Hitchman report, infantry fire was mostly considered as a form of collective fire, but after
WWII infantry fire effectiveness was often considered only from the point of individual fire, aimed at
individual targets, and collective fire was replaced by MG fire.
For exemple, the lowest hit probability reported in the Hitchman report, marksmen firing
simultaneously, at a distance of 500 yards, is around 5 %, and less than 10 % at 400 yards.

Figure 8: Marksmanship using the M1 rifle.

From an individual fire perspective (one soldier, one target and one bullet), this value could be
considered low, but from a tactical point of view, with tens to hundreds of soldiers, each carrying more
than a hundred rounds, its high enough to produce decisive military results.
For exemple:
during the battle of Magersfontain in December 1899, fire from the Boers' individual weapons
(Mauser bolt action rifles) at a range of around 400 yards (366 m) was sufficient to kill and
wound 665 British soldiers (24.5 % of the total) in the first 10 minutes of the battle,
a few days later, during the battle of Colenso, 2 British batteries (12 guns) of field artillery were
engaged by rifle fire at a distance of 700 m. Suffering heavy casualties, the British were forced
to fall back to their camp, losing 10 guns in the process.
In France, the experience gained during numerous post-WWII low intensity conflicts indicates that,
as envisioned during the 1920s, the capability to reach and touch a target at a distance of up to
600 m was necessary at the lowest organisational level, hence the mix of 9 mm SMG (MAT 49),
7.5 mm semi-auto rifle (MAS 49/56), 7.5 mm bolt action precision rifle (FRF1), 7.5 mm automatic rifle
(MAC 24/29) and sometimes an added 7.5 mm LMG (light version of the AA-52) in French platoons
after WWII.

The adoption by the US, followed by NATO, of the .223 Remington cartridge as the 5.56 x 45 mm, was
not the result of concluding that the battlefield depth (measured in kilometres before WWI) was now
reduced to 300 m, but an acknowledgement that effective HE support could be provided now at very
short range in most conditions, and that the fire delivered by the infantry individual weapon should be
used only for defeating adversaries in the 0 to 300 m bracket, longer ranges being devoted to
collective weapons firing heavier ammunition.
The light recoiling 5.56 x 45 mm greatly increased the infantryman's efficiency at short range (at the
expense of longer range capability), but also opened the door to a potentially unsafe situation not
really encountered before, in which the infantryman could carry (and fire) more ammunition than his
rifle could safely shoot.
For example, the cook-off limit of the very light M16A1 was between 120 and 140 rounds (depending
on the rate of fire) when the official load of the infantryman was 6 x 20-round magazines (120 rounds
overall) and 10 x 20-round magazines (200 rounds) unofficially.
When the magazine capacity of the rifle was extended to 30 rounds (between 180 and 300 rounds
overall), the cook-off limit remained at around 120-140 rounds until the adoption of the heavy-in-thexix

wrong-place barrel M16A2 .

In France, studies of the .223 Remington round started in 1963 and finally led to the adoption of the
hesitation locked FAMAS F1 (without a 3-shot burst device in 1977, and with a 3-shot burst device in
1979).
It was the first assault rifle adopted by France and replaced both the MAT 49 SMG (9 x 19 mm) and
the FSA semi-auto rifle (7.62 x 51 mm).
Before the adoption of the FAMAS rifle, studies were performed during the 1974-1975 period

xx

using

the very interesting IWK 5 g bullet (alongside other heavy bullets, with weights between 5 g and 5.5 g),
trying to extend the practical range of the .223 Remington up to 600 m and requiring an impact energy
of more than 647 J at this distance (M193 ~230 J; SS-109 ~340 J; IWK ~470 J).
To achieve the required impact energy, the IWK bullet needed an MV of ~950 m/s, a goal thought
much easier to achieve than the >1400 m/s needed for the M193 bullet to deliver the same impact
energy. Heavier bullets (5.5 g) sharing the same form factor would need only an MV of 900 m/s to be
effective up to 600 m.
Those efforts were unsuccessful mostly due to the cartridge's limited overall length (57.4 mm) and the
large bullet intrusion inside the case (due to unusually heavy bullets), even with lead-core bullets.
Using the .223 Remington case and the 5.0 g IWK bullet loaded to cartridge length greater than the
maximum 57.4 mm allowed, a muzzle velocity of ~880 m/s was achieved and the Powley computer
predicts an MV of ~900 m/s if the cartridge length is increased in such a way that the base of the bullet

remained in the case neck (still slightly lower than the required 950 m/s). Unfortunately, following such
a path would lead to a cartridge totally incompatible with existing weapons and the study was stopped.
Given the impossibility of extending the effective military range of the .223 Remington to 600 m, the
decision was made to keep the M193-like ballistics for the FAMAS ammunition and upgrade the old
bolt-action FRF1 precision rifle to the FRF2 standard which would provide effective fire at this distance
(the demonstrated average first shot hit probability at 600 m is 0.89 on the SC2 target).
Due to its very fast extraction cycle (~1200 rpm cyclic) and heavy weight, the FAMAS cook-off limit is
higher than 250 rounds so even if the infantryman empties his unofficial daily load of 10 x 25-rounds
magazines in a few minutes, no harmful situation will arise (except running out of ammunition in the
middle of a firefight, but thats potentially less harmful than bursting ones own rifle just before running
out of ammunition).

A fourth dead-end, the 1985-1995 caseless rifle program (MSD)

Since the case represents roughly 50 % of the weight of a conventional cartridge, caseless rounds
promised to double the ammunition capacity of the infantryman without increasing his burden.
Unfortunately, this promise has never been delivered and in the absence of active cooling, the cookoff limit of guns firing caseless ammunition was found to be much lower than similar guns firing cased
rounds, so the sustained rate of fire was not increased.
Lower cook-off limits combined with increased ammunition capacity did not provide a tactical
advantage, but more potential safety problems, as demonstrated by the German G11 rifle firing the 4.7
x 21 mm caseless rounds during the 1979-1982 NATO small-calibre review.
The evaluation of the G11 rifle was stopped just after performing the cook-off test, so when the
experimental FAMAS MSD (Munitions Sans Douilles, caseless ammunition) rifle program was
launched in 1985 it was decided to incorporate a kind of active cooling to the gun chamber, enabling a
maximum chamber-wall temperature of 130C after firing 150 rounds in less than 1 minute.
Two ammunition families were studied, the first one (PUC600 or demonstrator n1) around a 600 m
range requirement (firing a saboted 5.56 mm 3.6 g PPA bullet, with a tungsten carbide front insert),
and the second (PUC300 or demonstrator n2) based around a 300 m range requirement (firing a
saboted 4 mm, 1.30 g brass, or 2.61 g tungsten bullet). In both cases, a muzzle velocity higher than
1200 m/s (in a 450 mm barrel) was expected due to the heavy powder load for the calibre (2.4 g for
the PUC300, which was the only one fully developed, Figure 9).

Figure 9: The PUC300 saboted & caseless ammunition (left), and its bullet and sabot (right)

Unfortunately, trying to solve at the same time the problems of caseless ammunition, electric ignition,
saboted bullets and active cooling (even only in the form of an advanced heat sink) proved to be a real
technical challenge and the study was stopped in ~1995 after the evaluation of the demonstrator n2
(PUC300).
Compared with the M193, the PUC300 round used a lighter bullet (1.77 g lead bullet used for the
internal ballistics tests vs. 3.56 g) with the same SD (157 lbs/in) launched at a higher velocity
(~1200 m/s vs. ~970 m/s), but needed a relatively heavy powder load (2.4 g vs. 1.8 g) and finally
demonstrated a very low propulsive efficiency (<15 %) compared with conventional brass-case, fullcalibre, ammunition.

A fifth dead-end, the PAPOP program

In the 1950s, the answer to the low hit probability of the average soldier at ranges higher than 100 m
was the controlled dispersion concept of full-auto fire, leading to the reduced-recoil 5.56 mm round.
The difficulty in implementing this concept (the recoil of the 5.56 mm round was still high enough to
induce too much dispersion in a lightweight rifle), led to a shift from a burst of multiple kinetic energy
projectiles to the use of a single high-explosive, fragmenting round, the fragmentation pattern taking
care (at least on paper) of aiming errors.
The PAPOP project (Polyarme-Polyprojectile, similar to the US OICW) was intended to combine a 3shot 35 mm grenade launcher (for engaging targets between 300 m and 600 m) with a kinetic energy
viii

(5.56 mm) system for engaging targets at shorter range (between 0 and 300 m) .

The project did not go very far, as the weight of the combined weapon was found to be too high and
the grenade carrying capacity too low (even without taking into account the low effective radius of the
grenade compared with the average miss distance).
It should be pointed out that due to their low velocity, grenades are a very different beast than bullets
and that without the help of a laser rangefinder, aiming errors with a grenade launcher are a full two
orders of magnitude higher than for a rifle, nearly negating all of the benefit of the large casualty radius
produced by the grenade fragmentation warhead at long range.
According to US results, the typical range estimation error for trained soldiers is around 30 %, so for a
target at a true distance of 288 m (for example), even a trained soldier will hesitate between the 250,
275, 300 and 325 m setting on his grenade-launcher sight (an average miss distance of 25 m before
even taking into account the intrinsic weapon dispersion, compared with a typical grenade effective
radius of 5 m to 10 m), and will need to walk his fire to the target at range longer than 150 m, a very
difficult task with single-shot grenade launchers.
Even with a tripod-mounted laser rangefinder, operated by a trained spotter in a prone position, the
xxi

average range error measurement is around 5 % of the distance, and could be as high as 9.3 % . At
600 m range, thats an average error of 30 m, much more than the expected casualty radius of this
class of warhead.
Typical defensive hand grenades that use a very simple (compact and lightweight) fuse weigh in
between 400 g and 500 g, and have a reported casualty radius of around 10 m, so it is doubtful that a
20 mm to 40 mm spin-stabilized grenade with a weight between 100 g and 200 g could achieve a
much better casualty radius.
If the same range measurement error could be achieved with a hand held (or shoulder held) device,
combined with a 5 m to 10 m effective radius grenade, then a 300 m practical range could be claimed,
but a 600 m practical range will require the measurement error to be halved.

Historical trend conclusion

The rise and fall of the effective range of the individual weapon can be seen as a direct effect of the
competition between infantry fire and artillery fire in producing battlefield casualties, and a
compromise between the effective range and the practical rate of fire.
If in the 60 years before 1914, less than 10 % of the battlefield casualties were produced by artillery
fire, during (at least) the 60 years after 1914 artillery fire replaced long-range small-arms fire as the
main casualty factor.
The need to continuously increase the volume of fire led to the reduction in the practical range of
small-arms to less than 400 m, and allowed the rifleman to carry and fire more cartridges with his
individual weapon.

During the same timescale, infantry fire changed from collective fire aimed at compact columns
manoeuvring in the open, to individual fire aimed at a single fleeting target using the maximum
concealment and cover.
Under these engagement conditions, the hit probability of infantry fire was found sufficient up to
100 yards, and very low at ranges longer than 300 yards.
In order to increase the efficiency of the infantryman's individual fire at long range, the concept of
controlled pattern dispersion (ideally, 5 shots in a diamond pattern) was first introduced but for proper
execution needed to use a low recoil cartridge.
The adoption of the 5.56 mm in the M16A1 was seen as a first step in this direction, but battlefield
experience revealed that the recoil of the 5.56 mm round was not low enough for achieving controlled
dispersion at ranges higher than 50 m, and most western armies have recently come back to semiauto firing only.
Further reduction of the recoil impulse (like the .17 SBR among other experimental diminutive
cartridges) was not so successful due to the concomitant reduction of terminal effectiveness, the
Russian 5.45 x 39 mm being probably the best balance of reduced recoil and useful lethality.
Up to now, it seems that the only practical realisation of the concept of controlled pattern dispersion
is the G11 3 shot burst free-recoil system (at 2200 rpm) and the AN-94 accelerated double-tap (2
shot burst at 1800 rpm), two systems that have not achieved wide acceptance due to the mechanical
complexity involved.
During the 90s, medium-velocity grenades of limited diameter (20 mm 35 mm) with effective
ranges around 600 m, were seen as a way to compensate for the infantryman's lack of accuracy at
long range, but without a proper all weather Fire Control Module enabling a fast acquisition of the
target (it is doubtful that any soldier will be willing to expose himself to enemy fire for more than ~2
seconds), the average miss distance of such medium-velocity grenades will remain much higher than
their effective casualty radius and the improvement of the infantryman's hit probability is open to
question.
The current trend toward medium velocity 40 x 46 mm grenades is also open to question, because
between 0 to 350 m (and particularly between 50 m and 150 m), medium velocity grenades will impact
the ground at shallower angle than a low velocity round, increasing the fuse malfunction rate and
reducing the warhead effectiveness.
Anyway, shoulder launched grenades (low-velocity, medium velocity or rifle grenades) have a
definitive place on the battlefield because they provide both additional capabilities (against defilade
targets for example) and effective suppressive effects.
Additionally, with a simple 3-axis accelerometer and a GPS chipset (like those found in every
smartphone) wired into the grenade-launcher, its probably easy to design a simple indirect sight that

will show the grenadier the expected point of impact and CEP radius of its grenade on Google Earth
(or something similar), enabling this high trajectory weapon to be used without exposing the shooter to
returning fire.
Being involved more and more in low intensity conflicts (without HE support) or with restrictive Rules
of Engagements (RoE) that severely limit the access to HE support, the infantryman needs to be able
to engage opposing forces at longer ranges than previously thought (up to 600 m for point targets),
and fix them or limit their mobility up to 800 m (area targets).
The debate over whether these engagement distances should be achieved by the Individual Weapon
or left to collective weapons like the DMR and LMG is still open, but the weight and recoil of the
7.62 mm ammunition in its current incarnation militate against its use in a lightweight Individual
Weapon, hence the mix of 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm weapons in the same fire team.
In order to further increase the effectiveness of dismounted infantry, two new paths could be followed.
The ideal path would be to develop the lightest possible round capable of delivering the
terminal performances of the 7.62 mm ammunition at 600 m, with the weight and recoil of the
5.56 mm, along with a new generation of modular weapons, preferably with a bullpup
configuration (short rifle length with a proportionally long barrel).
The second path is to keep a mix of 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm weapons and improve the 7.62 x
51 mm with a lightweight and low recoil load, compatible with current weapons.
Those two possibilities will be detailed in the following parts.

Part Two: Study of a 600 m lightweight round

The methodology used in this study is very similar to the one presented in CRC-307
METHODOLOGY

FOR

SELECTING

SMALL-ARMS

ROUNDS

TO

MEET

xxii

MILITARY

REQUIREMENTS, but with different design parameters:

A slightly shorter barrel (508 mm vs. 560 mm),
The case capacity is defined by the maximum volume of existing 7.62 x 51 mm ammunition
and covers only the Medium / Short, Typical Medium and Medium / Long case volume of
CRC-307,
The use of lead-free bullets (that limits the bullet weight to Typical Light, Medium / Light
and Typical Medium weight class of CRC-307),
A better form factor (between .91 and .97 in this study, depending on the bullet length, instead
of ~.99 for all bullets used in CRC-307),
A different requirement for the energy needed to produce a lethal wound (82 J vs. 100 footpounds; 135 J in CRC-307).

Technical requirements
The main requirement of a 600 m lightweight round is to be as light as possible, but still able to hit
and defeat a protected soldier at 600 m (point target) and to deliver accurate and lethal fire up to 800
m (area target).
The protection generally considered on the battlefield is the 3.5 mm NATO steel plate. The impact
energy needed to perforate such plate is a function of the bullet diameter (to the power 3/2). Better
protection (NIJ level III & IV) is available today, but those levels, tailored to stop full-power rifle leadcore FMJ and steel-core armour piercing bullets respectively, are defeated by bullets with tungsten
carbide inserts.
The energy needed to inflict a lethal wound is more debatable and a commonly found value of 82 J
was selected for this study.
Bore & bullet diameter

Energy needed to defeat

Energy needed to

Total energy

the 3.5 mm plate

produce a lethal wound

required at 600 m

5.56 mm (5.69 mm)

565 J

82 J

647 J

6 mm (6.21 mm)

638 J

82 J

720 J

6.5 mm (6.71 mm)

722 J

82 J

804 J

7 mm (7.21 mm)

806 J

82 J

888 J

7.62 mm (7.82 mm)

910 J

82 J

992 J

This requirement is sufficient to guarantee that a bullet that will defeat a protected soldier at 600 m will
also defeat an unprotected soldier at 800 m.
The time of flight to the target should be as short as possible and wind drift should be minimised. The
bullet drop (vertical plane) and wind drift (horizontal plane) in average wind conditions (~5 m/s) are
combined in a single number called Combined Distance from Centre (CDFC). This way, flatshooting bullets (generally light weight, high drag, launched at high muzzle velocity) could be easily
compared with wind buckling bullets (generally heavy weight, low drag, launched at a lower muzzle
velocity).
Point of aim

Combined Distance from Centre

(CDFC)

Bullet drop
Point of impact
Wind drift

The vertical drop (Z) equals to

(with g the gravitational constant, and ToF the time of flight

to the target), and the Didion formula for wind drift (Y) is

, with W the wind speed and

the time of flight in vacuum conditions.

Since g equals 9.81 m/s, then g/2 is very close to the average wind velocity measured in France
(4.5 m/s) or the 10 mph used by US shooters, and so, for comparison purpose, the CDFC could be
practically reduced to
Contrary to the previous requirement (impact energy), not exceeding the CDFC of the current 7.62 x
51 mm M80 bullet at 600 m and 800 m cant be easily reduced to a single distance requirement, but
with few exceptions (high BC bullets launched at low muzzle velocity), a round that matches the M80
CDFC at 800 m also matches the M80 CDFC at 600 m.

The thermal problem

Small arms are internal combustion systems with limited efficiency (generally between 20% and 40%).
Heat not converted into kinetic energy or rotational energy (between 60% and 80% of the overall
energy) will be used to heat the weapon chamber and barrel, or will remain in the combustion products
(increasing the weapon muzzle signature with flash and blast).
According to the Powley computer, the thermal efficiency of both the 5.56 mm SS-109 and 7.62 mm
M80 bullets when fired from a 20 (508 mm) barrel is around ~31 %, so that means that the amount of
wasted heat (thermal load) is a little higher than 3900 J for the 5.56 mm round (1700 J of bullet
muzzle energy) and 7450 J for the 7.62 mm round (3300 J of bullet muzzle energy).

Heat flux (wasted heat divided by bore diameter) for both rounds is around 15.5 kJ/cm.
According to results obtained with the Powley Computer, the 7 x 59 mm of the 1909 automatic rifle
program, with a cartridge length of 79.3 mm, a case length of 58.9 mm and a case capacity of 4.5 cm

(3.6 g of powder) could launch a 7.6 g steel bullet (7.24 mm diameter and 27.4 mm length) at a muzzle
velocity of 1030 m/s (4030 J of muzzle energy) out of an extra-long (for now) 715 mm barrel length,
when loaded at a standard chamber pressure of 48 000 CUP (330 MPa).
Those predicted results are very similar to what was actually achieved in 1913.
The calculated thermal efficiency is 28.8 % and is equal to a thermal load of 9960 J (33 % more than
the current 7.62 mm M80 ball) and a thermal flux of 24.5 kJ/cm (60 % higher).
If we extended those calculations to more well-known cartridges (also using the Powley computer and
a uniform 508 mm barrel length), we obtain the following results.

Figure 10: Thermal flux for different civilian cartridges.

Without much surprise, at the low end of the scale (<<15 kJ/cm) we find the wildcats 6.5 mm TCU
and 6-223 Remington, cartridges that use the small .223 Remington case necked up to 6 mm or
6.5 mm. The .300 AAC Blackout and the 7.62 x 40 mm WT, not shown here, would exhibit even lower
heat flux.
Those rounds could be of historical interest since the casehead of the .223 Remington is the same
(9.6 mm) that that of the .351 WSL, and the unfortunate 8 mm Ribeyrolles (8 x 35 mm SR) could be
seen as a kind of necked-up, low-pressure 8 mm AAC Blackout.

At the other side of the scale (>30 kJ/cm) we find high intensity cartridges like the .220 Swift, .240
Weatherby and the .264 Winchester Magnum that have a well established reputation of being barrel
burners even for civilian applications. The barrel length of 508 mm used for those computations does
not do justice to the big 7 mm Remington Magnum in terms of barrel life, but is a clear indication that a
lot of wasted heat will flow through the barrel and that one could expect a large muzzle report. In the
case of the .264 Winchester Magnum fired from a 508 mm tube, you will achieve both low barrel life
and large muzzle report.
Between those two extremes, we have the comfortable 15-20 kJ/cm zone where we could find
military cartridges and civilian equivalents (.223 Remington, .308 Winchester and 7-08), and the 2530 kJ/cm zone with high velocity cartridges (.243 Winchester and .22-250 Remington) that represents
what is generally considered the high-end of the usable range.
Depending on the applications, cartridges in the 20-25 kJ/cm range could be used but the failure of
the 7 x 59 mm as a military round is an indication that a heat flux lower than 20 kJ/cm is a safer bet
(and closer to 15 kJ/cm even better).

Cartridge and bullet design

All of the cartridges investigated here with the Powley computer are loaded to the same overall
length (71.1 mm), the same pressure (48 000 CUP 330 MPa) and results are given in a 508 mm
barrel.
This cartridge overall length (COAL) was selected because previous investigations (see part 1) have
shown that the COAL of the 5.56 x 45 mm (57.4 mm) was not sufficient to fulfil the energy and
trajectory requirements with heavy metal-free bullets, and given the limited difference in weight
between some 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm rifles (for example, 3.545 kg dry for the 5.56 mm FN SCAR-L
with a 14.5 barrel and 3.621 kg dry for the 7.62 mm FN SCAR-H with a 16 barrel) there is little
reason to choose an intermediate action length between the micro-action 5.56 mm and short
action 7.62 mm.
3 bullet lengths were investigated, a short bullet (4 calibres long), a medium bullet (4 calibres
long) and a long bullet (5 calibres long). All bullets featured a tangent-secant ogive with a length of
60 % of the total bullet length, a shank with a length of 25 % of the total bullet length, and a 7 boat-tail
with a length of 15 % of the total bullet length.

Figure 11: example of the general shape of short (4 calibres) and long (5 calibres) bullets: their
centres of gravity are indicated by the red dots

This balance of parameters ensured that the bullet centre of gravity (CoG) was supported by the barrel
grooves during bullet in-bore travel, avoiding detrimental in-bore yaw. The expected i7 form factor of
the short bullet with its 2.4 calibres ogive height is ~.98 (a slight improvement compared to the ~1.12
of the M80 bullet), ~.93 for the medium bullet (with a 2.7 calibres ogive height) and ~.90 for the long
bullet (with a 3 calibres ogive height).
A longer bullet (5 calibres long with a 3.3 calibres ogive height) would enable an even better shape
and a heavier bullet, but the barrel twist required for gyroscopic stability would be unusually (and
maybe impractically) short, so the maximum length used in this study is 5 calibres.
3

The bullet density was set at 8.5 g/cm (common 70/30 brass). A further performance increase could
3

be achieved by using a higher density brass (8.74 g/cm for the 90/10 alloy used for the balle D bullet
for example).
Finally, 5 bullet diameters (5.56 mm, 6 mm, 6.5 mm, 7 mm and 7.62 mm bore diameter) and 5 case
body diameters (9.6 mm, 10.2 mm, 10.7 mm, 11.2 mm and 12.0 mm) were considered, covering case
3

capacities from 2.36 cm to 3.89 cm .

Bore diameter

Short bullet

Medium bullet

Long bullet

Weight (g)

G7 BC

Weight (g)

G7 BC

Weight (g)

G7 BC

5.56 mm

3.6

.16

3.9

.18

4.4

.21

6 mm

4.4

.17

5.0

.20

5.5

.23

6.5 mm

5.8

.19

6.5

.22

7.1

.25

7 mm

7.1

.20

8.1

.24

9.0

.27

7.62 mm

9.5

.22

10.4

.26

11.7

.30

So, for each bore diameter studied, 15 combinations were investigated.

Results, 5.56 mm bore diameter

From a trajectory point of view, all of the 5.56 mm considered here deliver very good performance up
to 800 m, but at the cost of very high heat flux (always higher than 20 kJ/cm).
600 m impact energy is not so impressive, but the extrapolation of the long bullet curve (.21 G7 BC)
to 20 kJ/cm shows that the 4.4 g bullet with a muzzle velocity of ~950 m/s is close to the minimum
requirement, but also that this bore diameter would benefit from a heavier bullet launched at a reduced
velocity.
Pushing the bullet length to 5 calibres should give us the desired result, with a 4.7 g bullet that could
be launched at a MV around 905 m/s from a 508 mm barrel (according to the Powley computer).
The calculated 600 m impact energy of such a very long bullet is close to 670 J and the 800 m CDFC
should be 1.68 m. Expected impulse and heat flux are 6.4 N.s and 18.2 kJ cm, respectively.
Unfortunately this bullet would need a very short twist (150 mm) for proper stabilisation, so in the limits
of the design parameters of this study there is no solution space for this bore diameter.
While this combination (small case volume and very long bullet) delivers probably very good
performance from a cartridge weight point of view, when loaded to the same heat flux or to the same
impulse, the shorter 6.5 mm 5 calibre bullet will deliver the same 800 m CDFC, or the same 600 m
impact energy, respectively.

Figure 12: 800 m CDFC (left) and 600 m impact energy (right) for the 5.56 mm bore.

Results, the 6 mm bore diameter

In civilian shooting circles, the various 6 mm used for precision shooting (sometimes up to 1000 yards
/ 914 m) earned a wide acceptance due to their balance of low recoil and very good long-range
performance, using bullets of 105 grains to 115 gr (6.8 to 7.45 g).

Figure 13: 800 m CDFC (left) and 600 m impact energy (right) for the 6 mm bore.

Unfortunately, the heaviest bullet studied here weighs in at 85 gr (5.5 g) and it can be seen that just
like the 5.56 mm bore, the 6 mm would benefit from a longer and heavier bullet.
But unlike the 5.56 mm bore, there is at least one combination of parameters that fills the solution
space using the 85 gr long bullet and what is essentially a commercial 5.6 x 50 mm case necked up
to 6 mm. The calculated MV of 880 m/s from a 508 mm long barrel would give an impact energy of
739 J (720 J minimum) with a heat flux of 19.5 kJ/cm (20 kJ/cm maximum). Anyway, any change in
the various parameters (shorter barrel or reduced BC due to increased production tolerance or the
addition of a bullet groove) will decrease performance below the minimum specified values.

Results, the 6.5 mm bore diameter

The 6.5 mm, once strictly a military number (6.5 x 50 mm Japanese, 6.5 x 52 mm Italian, 6.5 x 53
mm R Dutch & Romanian, 6.5 x 54 mm Greek, 6.5 x 55 mm Swedish, 6.5 x 58 mm Portuguese and
also the experimental French 6.5 mm for the Meunier A5 rifle and the Russian 6.5 mm for the Fedorov
rifle) is now widely used by civilian shooters for 1000 yards / 914 m competitions (6.5 x 47 mm, 6.5
mm Creedmoor, .260 Remington and the semi-wildcat 6.5-284 Norma), delivering better performance
than the 6 mm with less recoil than the 7 mm.

Figure 14: 800 m CDFC (left) and 600 m impact energy (right) for the 6.5 mm bore.

As can be seen in Figure 14, this bore diameter enables a wide choice of solutions with both medium
(6.5 g) and long (7.1 g) bullets, the best results (trajectory and energy) being achieved with the long
bullet.
At the lower end of the solution space, a 51 mm long case with a body diameter of 10.2 mm (~5.45 x
3

39 mm Russian case elongated to 51 mm, capacity of 2.65 cm ) will allow a calculated MV of 810 m/s
firing the 7.1 g bullet from a 508 mm barrel.
At the higher end of the solution space a 51 mm long case with a body diameter of 11.2 mm (in the
same class as the 6.5 mm Japanese, 6.5 mm Italian or 6.5 mm Greek, with a case capacity of
3

~3.1 cm ) will allow a calculated MV of 860 m/s from the same barrel length.
Interestingly, the biggest case (12.0 mm case head) corresponds almost exactly to the commercial
.260 Remington, and real world results indicate that although this cartridge easily outperforms the 7.62
x 51 mm at long range, the reduction of recoil and ammunition weight will be minimal.

Results, the 7 mm bore diameter

Ever since the introduction of the 7 mm Mauser in 1892, this bore diameter has enjoyed a very good
reputation both as a civilian round and as a military round.
This bore diameter was selected prior to WWI by both the French (7 x 59 mm) and UK (.276 Enfield)
to replace the 8 mm Mle 1886 and .303 British respectively (with equal lack of success in both cases),
and more importantly by the US before WWII for the .276 Pedersen and by the UK just after WWII for
the .280 British.

Figure 15: 800 m CDFC (left) and 600 m impact energy (right) for the 7 mm bore.

As could be seen, the solution space for this diameter is wide and every bullet / case combination
produces a heat flux lower than 20 kJ/cm.
From a trajectory point of view, the long bullet (9.0 g) does not deliver a better trajectory up to 800 m
than the medium (8.4 g) bullet, but the 600 m retained energy is higher due to the weight.
3

Here again, case diameters of 10.7 mm and 11.2 mm with a capacity of 3.1 0.1 cm are enough to
provide the muzzle velocity required.
With both medium and long bullets, this bore diameter delivers very good performance (high
retained energy, good trajectory and minimum heat flux) but also represents the high end of the
game, with a round weight probably very close to the 24 g of the M80 round.

Results, the 7.62 mm bore diameter

This diameter seems to be one of the most used for military applications, delivering universally
appreciated terminal results but with mostly inefficient external ballistics (the 600 m impact energy of
the M80 bullet is only 1/3 of its muzzle energy), too much weight (24 g per round) and too much recoil
(11.6 N.s).

Figure 16: 800 m CDFC (left) and 600 m impact energy (right) for the 7.62 mm bore.

Due to the choice of design parameters aimed toward a lighter round than the M80 (maximum length
and largest body case diameter equalling the 7.62 x 51 mm M80), the solution space for the 7.62 mm
bore is very limited.
Only the largest case body diameter (12.0 mm) allows the required powder load needed to drive the
short (9.5 g) and medium (10.4 g) bullets at sufficient muzzle velocity (830 m/s and 778 m/s,
respectively) to achieve the required trajectory at 600 m and 800 m.
Compared to the M80, increasing the projectile weight (and BC) increases the impact energy, reduces
the needed powder load and the heat flux but does not improve the trajectory nor the cartridge weight
or the recoil.
In order to reduce the cartridge weight and recoil, we need to find a way to reduce the bullet weight
while increasing its BC.

Discussion
In the beginning of this chapter, we have seen that the technical requirements of a 600 m GP round
could be limited to only 3 parameters, one related to the trajectory (hit probability), one related to the
impact energy (terminal effectiveness), and one related to the heat flux (muzzle report, practical rate of
fire and system life).
If we draw the 800 m CDFC as a function of the round heat flux, we obtain the following result.

Figure 17: 800 m Combined Distance From Centre as a function of the cartridge heat flux.

Its easy to see why small-calibre, high velocity cartridges sparked so much interest, because on
paper they could deliver reduced time of flight to target and a great increase of the hit probability
against a moving target at unknown range.
But within the 20 kJ/cm limit, the best trajectory for a given heat flux is given by the 6.5 mm bore
loaded with the 7.1 g long bullet, followed by the 7 mm bore loaded with the 8.4 g medium bullet,
then again the 6.5 mm loaded with the 6.5 g medium bullet, then by the 7 mm bore loaded with the
9.0 g long bullet (in that order, but the difference between those 4 combination is very small).
If we narrow our choice to those two bore diameter, we could see that for a given impulse (recoil), the
6.5 mm delivers better trajectory up to 800 m than the 7 mm (Figure 18), a fact well-known by the
long-range civilian shooter crowd.

Figure 18: 800 m Combined Distance from Centre as a function of the cartridge impulse.

Now, if we look at the retained energy at 600 m as a function of the cartridge impulse (Figure 19), we
could see that the 6.5 mm bore 7.1 g long bullet delivers more energy for a given impulse value (for
impulse value <9.2 N.s) than the other combinations, the 7 mm bore 9.0 g long bullet being better
when the impulse is higher than 9.2 N.s.

Figure 19: 600 m impact energy as a function of the cartridge impulse.

If the 600 m impact energy is drawn as a function of the heat flux (Figure 20), the 7 mm shows a
marked reduction of the cartridge heat flux for a given 600 m energy, compared to the 6.5 mm bore,
even if due to its smaller diameter the 6.5 mm will need less impact energy to perforate the 3.5 mm
steel plate.

Figure 20: 600 m impact energy as a function of the cartridge heat flux.

Cartridge design conclusion

It is no surprise that the best results in this study were obtained with the 6.5 mm and the 7 mm bore.
Although not studied here, it is clear that the .270" / 6.8 mm calibre would be equally effective if
designed using the same parameters.
The 6.5 mm will need a long (7.1 g) bullet to achieve the best results and could be considered as the
lightest technical solution, since for a given impulse and heat flux it will deliver the highest impact
energy at 600 m and the best trajectory up to 800 m.
The 7 mm could be used with both the medium (8.4 g) and the long (9.0 g) bullet, the last one being
probably the heaviest technical solution boundary. Those two combinations will deliver the highest
impact energy at 600 m for a given heat flux, but with recoil a little higher than the 6.5 mm bore long
bullet combination.
The optimum case capacity for both bore diameters is in the vicinity of 2.9 3.1 cm3, with predicted
muzzle energy of 2500 2700 J out of a 508 mm barrel.
For example, a 51 mm long case with a body diameter of 10.7 mm (essentially the full-length
3

.30 Remington case necked down to 6.5 mm, case capacity of 2.9 cm ), firing the long 7.1 g bullet at
a calculated MV of 835 m/s, will allow (compared to the current 7.62 x 51 mm M80):

a lighter round (19 g vs. 24 g) using existing technologies and a brass case,

a reduced recoil (8.3 N.s vs. 11.6 N.s), due to the reduced bullet weight and powder load,

a better trajectory at all distances (less bullet drop and 25 % less wind drift),

the same bullet sectional density and higher impact velocity at all ranges, giving better tactical
penetration,

the same impact energy at 600 m and up,

longer supersonic range (1000 m vs. 800 m).

Those findings are very similar to those obtained in the CRC 307 study.
Of course, if one was to adopt a new round, it would be highly advisable that this new round case
geometry should allow (from the beginning) the easy use of a light polymer (or composite) case.
A polymer case (with a light alloy case head) could:
be tailored so that case capacity exactly fits the powder load and avoids free volume,
decreasing shot-to-shot dispersion and improving internal ballistics,
reduce the heat transfer from the cartridge to the chamber due to their low heat conductivity,
reduce the weight of a given round by ~30-35 % compared to conventional brass cased
ammunition.

The cartridge described above, with a composite case and a slightly greater body diameter
(~11.2 mm) to account for the internal volume loss due to the polymer body, is expected to be no
heavier than the current 5.56 x 45 mm SS-109.

Part Three: And now? Current development

Due to the urgent need to replace the ageing FAMAS F1 assault rifle (produced between 1979 and
1989), the French army has decided to keep the 5.56 mm NATO round for the AIF (Arme Individuelle
Future) and supplement it with two 7.62 mm weapons, the DMR AIF-P (Arme Individuelle Future de
Prcision) and the LMG FM 7.62 (Fusil Mitrailleur 7.62) for long-range (600 800 m) fire support.
This mix of 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm weapons is expected to remain in service at least up to 2040.
The current limitations of the 7.62 x 51 mm M80 round (weight and recoil) are well known and a smallscale study (supported by the Mission Innovation Participative of the French MoD) was launched to
find a way to improve this round for dismounted infantry operations.

Experimental validation of previous findings

As stated before, the key point for improving small-arms ammunition performance is to reduce the
bullet drag compared with current designs. Reducing the drag will enable, for a given impact energy at
a given distance, a reduction in the required muzzle energy, hence reductions in the powder load,
bullet weight, ammunition weight and recoil.
Several bullet shapes were investigated and Doppler radar was used to check the actual bullet drag
when fired from real small-arms (Figure 21).

I7 = 1

I7 = 0.79

Figure 21: Doppler radar measurement of seven shots recorded with the best shape tested, compared
with the G7 drag curve (form factor = 1).

The best shape was found to closely follow the G7 curve (in the supersonic domain) with an i7 form
factor of .79, a 30 % reduction of drag compared to current 7.62 mm M80 bullet (i7 form factor of
1.12).
The long boat-tail of this bullet impaired its dynamic stability around Mach 1 (shot-to-shot drag
variation increase below Mach 1.2) but this phenomenon did not degrade significantly the accuracy at
long range.

Due to the availability of a large number of weapons already chambered for several 6.5 mm wildcats
3

ranging from the small 6.5 mm TCU (case capacity of ~2.1 cm ), to the massively overbore 6.5-300
3

Winchester Magnum (case capacity of 5.35 cm ), this bore diameter was selected for running some
additional experimental validation and two lots of 6.5 mm bullets were manufactured, keeping the
same proportions as the previous bullet in a more compact shape.

Figure 22: Example of manufactured bullets (left, 6.8 g hybrid ogive, right 7.5 g tangent ogive)

Two bullet nose-shape and brass grade were tested, a light one (6.8 g) with a high zinc content and
a hybrid (tangent secant) nose design, and a heavy one (7.5 g) with a low zinc content and a
tangent nose design.
Very good results were achieved with a compressed powder load of ~1.8 g and the 6.5 mm TCU case.
Due to the limited number of available bullets no effort was made to test different type of powders,
loading densities and bullet jump.
The reloading process was limited to basically removing the bullet and powder from a 5.56 mm military
round, expanding the case neck to the correct diameter, putting back the original powder load (minus
a fraction of a gram to account for the extra bullet intrusion due to the long boat-tail) and seating a new
6.5 mm bullet on top of that.

The muzzle velocity from a 580 mm barrel was 824 m/s and 812 m/s for the 6.8 g and 7.5 g bullets,
respectively.
With this powder load, the best results were achieved with the 6.8 g bullet. The accuracy of this load
was found to be very good, with typical 3 shot groups smaller than 1 minute of angle (MoA) at 300 m
(Figure 23).

Figure 23: Typical groups at 100 m (left) and 300 m (right) with the 6.8 g bullet (0.6 MoA).

The 7.5 g bullet exhibited an interesting behaviour. When first fired at a muzzle velocity of 812 m/s in
3

cold conditions (snow was blowing, air density around 1.3 kg/m ) out of a 203 mm twist barrel, the
measured form factor was found to be suspiciously high (i7 around 1.5) and the accuracy was slightly
less than the 6.8 g bullet. When the same bullet was fired a few weeks later at a MV of 1050 m/s (from
3

a .264 Winchester Magnum case) in warmer conditions (air density of 1.2 kg/m ), the measured form
factor was markedly improved (with i7 value close to the expected value of 0.9) and accuracy was also
increased.
Tactical penetration was evaluated at a distance of 200 m against a brick wall, a concrete masonry
unit (CMU) and autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) (Figure 24) in comparison with 7.62 x 51 mm ball,
both bullets having the same impact velocity at 200 m (around 700 m/s).

Figure 24: Targets used for tactical penetration evaluation.

Penetration in all media was identical or better with the 6.5 mm bullet than with the 7.62 mm bullet.
Due to range limitations, it was not possible to evaluate tactical penetration at 400 m and 600 m, but it
is thought that the 6.5 mm solid bullet, with a sectional density close to the 7.62 mm FMJ and a higher
impact velocity due to a lower drag, will show at least the same level of performance.
Even if this study was far from being exhaustive (only ~200 bullets were manufactured and fired for
the determination of the accuracy, ballistic coefficients and tactical penetration), those experimental
results showed that the overall performance of the 7.62 x 51 mm ball ammunition could be duplicated
in a much smaller package.
While not completely fair due to the use of a compressed powder load (unsuitable for military use) and
a slightly longer than usual 580 mm barrel, the 6.5 mm TCU cartridge weighed less than 15 g with its
6.8 g bullet, delivering better performance than the 7.62 mm M80 ball with only 75 % of its recoil and
60 % of its weight.

An improved 7.62 x 51 mm load, the 7.62 x 43 mm neckless

This improved round should be as light as possible, with reduced recoil, but more importantly should
be compatible with existing weapons.
In addition to the requirements found in the Multi Calibre MOPI, the bullet needs to be stable in the
305 mm twist used in the NATO nominated L7A2 MG (and in most 7.62 mm NATO weapons).
The lower bound of bullet weight is 8.4 g and minimum energy is 2756 J at 24 m (810 m/s) from a 22
(560 mm) barrel.
The objective, to reduce both cartridge weight and recoil without reducing the terminal effects, leads to
the reduction of the bullet and powder load weight and at the same time an increase of the bullet BC,
and also the ability to use a much lighter cartridge case.
This could be achieved using a bullet with a much lower form factor than the ~1.1 (i7) form factor of
the current M80 bullet, and with the replacement of the brass case with a composite case (polymer
body and light alloy case head).
The geometry of the 7.62 x 51 mm cartridge puts a strict limit on the maximum ogive height
(2.5 calibres), and the geometry of a bottle shaped cartridge neck is a perfect example of a
concentration of mechanical constraints, which makes the manufacture of a reliable polymer case
body difficult.
So, the basic idea of the neck less ammunition was to simply forget about the cartridge neck and
make the mechanical link between the bullet and the case in the case shoulder area (Figure 25).

Figure 25: Sketch of a neckless 7.62 x 43 mm round in a conventional 7.62 x 51 mm chamber.

This design was successfully tried 30 years ago by the AAI Corporation for 20 mm and 25 mm
medium calibre ammunition

xxiii

, but unfortunately the reduction in the case capacity did not allow the

required muzzle velocity to be achieved.

Figure 26: Example of AAI Corporation 25 mm ammunition (1973 manufacture) with neckless composite
case.

The reduction in the case capacity will limit the muzzle velocity and muzzle energy, but will also enable
a large increase in the ogive height and a reduction in the bullet drag.
The manufacturing process for neckless ammunition will be also different from that for conventional
ammunition.
The polymer case body will be over-moulded directly onto the bullet shank for a good mechanical link
between the bullet cannelure and the case body.
The powder will be loaded from the rear of the case (with loose powder or with a pre-compressed
block) then the case will be closed with the light alloy base supporting a conventional primer.
Of course, this choice is not without drawbacks:
The case capacity is severely reduced, hence a lower muzzle energy.
The bullet jump (freebore) is significantly lengthened and could reduce accuracy.
The light and long bullet still needs to be properly stabilized by the 305 mm twist.

In order to minimize those points, it is expected than:

Even with a large reduction in case capacity (due to the shorter case and thicker walls), the
composite case internal volume would be perfectly suited for a 2.2 - 2.4 g powder load
(compared to 2.9 3.0 g for the M80 load) which (as found in part 2) would be sufficient for
proper 600 m performances.

The bullet weight is reduced from 9.5 g to 8.5 g but the improvement in the form factor in the
supersonic domain would be enough to actually increase the overall bullet ballistic coefficient,
enabling a supersonic range a little higher than 800 m in standard OACI atmosphere.
The choice of bullet nose shape and centre of gravity (CoG) would enable the self-centring
of the bullet and minimize in-bore yaw.
The bullets flat base would reduce sensitivity to flow dissymmetry at the guns muzzle and
improve the accuracy compared with a boat-tailed bullet. This geometry also improves
significantly the bullet gyroscopic and dynamic stability in all flight regimes. The drag in the
subsonic regime is increased but this effect would be significant only at very long range
(higher than 1500 m).

The future?
The previous results obtained with a brass 6.5 mm bullet showed that it was possible to easily
duplicate the 7.62 x 51 mm ball terminal performance with a bullet weight around 7 g, and at the same
time achieving better hit probability (see part 2), so it was decided to investigate a 6.5 mm version of
the 7.62 x 43 mm neckless ammunition which could be used in existing guns chambered for the
.260 Remington round.

Figure 27: Sketch of a neck less 6.5 x 43 mm round in a conventional .260 Remington chamber.

Compared with the current 7.62 x 51 mm ball ammunition, this round is expected to show reduced
recoil (25 % less) and an improved trajectory (30 % less wind drift and 10 % less ToF to 600 m), both
factors leading to an increase in the hit probability, an extended supersonic range (up to 1 km) and
reduced weight (45 % less, making this round just 5 % heavier than the current 5.56 mm).
While this design enables a quick conversion of weapons chambered for the 7.62 x 51 mm with just
the change of the barrel, a longer case (45-47 mm) with a reduced body diameter (10.7 11.2 mm

instead of 12 mm) would probably be a better choice for a general purpose cartridge (allowing for 25round magazines instead of 20 rounds with the 12 mm case head).

Etude sur les armes de chasse , Revue dArtillerie, octobre 1896, p.156.
L'Artillerie de terre en France pendant un sicle. Histoire technique (1816-1919) , T1, p.368.
iii
Field artillery and firepower, (2004) Naval Institute Press, ISBN 1-59114-029-3.
iv
Notes sur les effets vulnrants des nouvelles armes , Revue dArtillerie, septembre 1901.
v
Fusil automatique , Revue dInfanterie, janvier 1910, pp.97-99.
vi
Poudres BN3F amliores , Revue dInfanterie, mai 1920, pp.180-186 et pp.281-287.
vii
Les fusils franais verrou , p.131, J. Huon, ISBN 2 7030 0271 8.
viii
Les fusils dassaut franais de 1916 nos jours , pp.6-7 et p.130, J. Huon, ISBN 2 7030 0223 8.
ix
La question du fusil automatique pour linfanterie , Revue dInfanterie, mai 1920, pp.662-685.
x
Ladoption dun fusil automatique , Revue dArtillerie, octobre 1911, mars 1912, pp.5-45.
xi
Cartridge Manufacture, The Industrial Press, New York, 1916, pp.143-153.
xii
La culture physique , n156, juillet 1911, p.419.
xiii
Cahier des charges communes du 16 avril 1923 pour la fourniture au service de l'artillerie du
laiton en bandes au dosage de 90/10 pour enveloppes de balles , dition 1923.
xiv
Les armes portatives individuelles et collectives et leurs munitions durant la guerre de 19141918 , Revue dInfanterie, juillet-dcembre 1922, p.63.
xv
L'Artillerie de terre en France pendant un sicle. Histoire technique (1816-1919) , T2, pp.504505.
xvi
TABLES DE TIR DE LA CARTOUCHE DE 8mm Mle 1932 N , QUESTION N 461, Camp de La
COURTINE, le 29 Fvrier 1940.
xvii
Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon, ORO-T-160, 1952.
xviii
An Effectiveness Study of the Infantry Rifle, BRL report n593, 1952.
xix
Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements, ARI Research Note
86-19, p8.
xx
Optimisation de la cartouche de 5,56 mm , STAT 10/75 A416.
xxi
Sniper Weapon Fire Control Error Budget Analysis, (1999) ARL-TR-2065, p.14.
xxii
A Methodology For Selecting Small-Arms Rounds To Meet Military Requirements, CRC 307,
September 1976.
xxiii
DEVELOPMENT OF 20mm PLASTIC/ALUMINUM CARTRIDGE CASE, AAI CORPORATION,
TECHNICAL REPORT AFATL-TR-74-62, p16.
ii