LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quotelooks good, thou i doubt it can mach quantity of .223, 7,62x39, or 308. as good as it is it is useless, if you have shortage of it.
SSK 6.5 MPC: Best Assault Rifle Cartridge for 21st Century Warfare?
Posted on Sunday, December 31 @ 11:54:47 PST by davidc
by David Crane
david at defensereview.com
Small arms designer/developer J.D. Jones of SSK Industries has developed what may just prove to be a superior solution to the 6.8x43mm SPC (a.k.a. 6.8 SPC) and/or 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39mm) cartidges as a replacement for the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge for U.S. military general infantry and Special Operations (USSOCOM) use. Mr. Jones is calling it the 6.5mm Multi-Purpose Cartridge (6.5 MPC), and on paper, it looks pretty good.
The 6.5 MPC (6.5x42mm) utilizes the...
standard 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Rem. case, which must be shortened by three (3) millimeters. However, to maximize powder capacity (and thus projectile velocity and ballistic/terminal performance), Mr. Jones pushed the case shoulder back a tad and increased the size of the case neck so it would accept a 6.5mm bullet. The result? A 95-grain "SSK Solid" bullet travelling at a muzzle velocity (MV) of approx. 2600 fps out of a 12-inch (12") barrel and approx. 2800 fps out of a 20-inch (20") barrel. So, were' guessing around 2700 fps out of a 16-inch (16") barrel (unconfirmed/unverified). Pretty respectable. Muzzle velocities for the 110-grain Sierra HP version of the 6.5 SPC are 2480 fps (12") and 2731 fps (20"). MVs for the 120-grain "SMK" round are 2220 fps (12") and 2400 fps (20"). 120-grains is the upper limit of bullet weight for this cartridge. Anything above that affords limited ballistic returns. Impact energy (terminal energy) is reportedly 30-50% greater for the 6.5 MPC over the 5.56mm NATO, depending on bullet weights and types, while the weapon remains highly controlloble on full-auto.
The 6.5 MPC page at the SSK Industries website mentions that they've fired a 107-grain SMK round at 2400 fps out of a weapon with a 12"-barreled CQBR-type upper receiver and that effective engagement range is 300+ yards. With longer barrels, the distance is increased.
So, why the 6.5 MPC instead of the 6.8 SPC? Ease and cost of conversion (weapons conversion), ammo capacity, and ammo weight (ammo carry capacity at a given load weight). The 6.5 MPC utilizes standard AR-15/M16/M4/M4A1 magazines and bolts, and will function in both the SOPMOD M4/M4A1 Carbine and belt-fed FN M249 SAW/LMG, provided you switch out the barrel(s). No further modification is reportedly necessary. Mag capacity for the 6.5mm MPC is 30 rounds (although you might still want to down-load it to 28, as many do with 5.56mm ammo for reliability purposes). The 6.8mm SPC doesn't stack properly in standard 5.56mm M4/M4A1 mags, and the magazines that have been developed for it limit ammo capacity to 25 rounds, as opposed to 30 rounds, so the 6.8 SPC mags will fit inside current military mag carry pouches. You can also use 5.56 NATO stripper clips to load 6.5 MPC rounds into the mag. At present, there are no 6.8 SPC stripper clips.
6.5 MPC ammo will reportedly feed as reliably as 5.56x45mm NATO ball ammo, and it (6.5 MPC) can utilize standard M27 links (belt links) with no modification, so it will reportedly feed reliably through the M249 SAW. You only have to switch the barrel to 6.5mm caliber. Not so with the 6.8 SPC, which would require modification to the M27 link.
The 6.8 SPC cartridge weighs approx. 40% more than the 5.56mm NATO cartridge. That, combined with the fact that 6.8 SPC mags are made of steel instead of aluminum (making the magazine roughly twice as heavy), means that the infantry warfighter or Spec-Operator will be able to carry less rounds of 6.8 SPC vs. 6.5 MPC or 5.56 NATO.
Reported ammo carry capacity breakdown for the various cartridges at the same carry weight (specific weight unkown, and unconfirmed/unverified):
5.56 NATO: 10 x 30-round mags = 300 rounds
6.5 MPC: 9 x 30-round mags = 270 rounds
6.8 SPC: 7 x 25-round mags = 175 rounds
DefenseReview recommends that you read Stan Crist's article on the 6.5mm Multi-Purpose Cartridge in the #44 issue of Special Weapons for Military & Police (SWMP) magazine. That issue has a photo of a U.S. Ordnance M60E4/MK43 Mod1 Commando "light machine gun series" GPMG (7.62x51mm) on the cover, and the article is titled "SSK 6.5mm MPC: Multi-Purpose Cartridge delivers bet-your-life performance." While SSK Industries Website indicates that they developed the 6.5 MPC round at the behest of one Brian Hormberg (USMC), it should perhaps be noted that Stanley Crist mentions in his article that he wrote about his own idea for a 6.5mm assault rifle cartidge in the #36 Issue of Special Weapons for Military and Police. Mr. Crist called his cartridge the 6.5mm Standard Combat Cartridge (6.5 SCC).
Bottom line, if the 6.5 MPC proves reliable in the AR-15/M16 and SOPMOD M4/M4A1 platforms, is combat accurate out to realistic assault rifle engagement distances, and the AR-type upper receivers and barrels hold up to full-auto fire at high round count, then it may just be the ticket for the 5.56's replacement (and thus a better answer than the 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel) for infantry assault rifles and carbines. Time, money, and politics will tell.
If you'd like more info in the 6.5MPC cartridge and weapon conversions (i.e. upper receivers) that are available for it, Defense Review suggests that you contact SSK Industries.
Company Contact Info:
SSK Industries
590 Woodvue Lane
Wintersville, Ohio 43953
740-264-0176 Phone
740-264-2257 Fax
sskindust@1st.net Email
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
looks good, thou i doubt it can mach quantity of .223, 7,62x39, or 308. as good as it is it is useless, if you have shortage of it.
well factories can be retooled. The US has been planning to switch ammo anyway, but like the article mentions, that would include a lot of reequipping for the guns we got.
I'm interested in criticisms of it, people probably know more than I do.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
If there is a good reason for it, an ammo plant can spit 6.5 out by the millions. I want to see some testing done and see how good the 6.5 really is before getting hot and bothered. Even if the 6.5 is head and shoulders above the 5.56, politics will most likely dictate no change.
7,62, wanst it just fine?
Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none; be able for thine enemy rather in power than use; and keep thy friend under thine own life's key; be checked for silence, but never taxed for speech.
That round is pretty heavy, and now most of our weapons are no longer configured for it. What we are looking to do is get light rounds that are more powerful, where there is the least amount of retrofitting that has to be done to the millions of small arms we have out there.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
As a consumer, I would wait on this development.
For combat, I would like to ask what the merits are for switching to this new type of ammo.
We used to have the full powered battle rifle rounds. Stuff like the 30-.06, 7.62x51, 7.62x54R, .303 Brit, and 7.92 Mauser.
Those are way over-powered in regular fighting. So we came up with the 5.56x45, 5.45x39, and the legendary 7.62x39. These rounds were made to fill the gap between pistol rounds and full powered battle rifle rounds. They do exactly what we want them to do. High volume of fire per soldier with decent range suitable for an ordinary rifleman to hit his target.
Now we find a gap between the full powered battle rifle round and the intermediate assault rifle round. Is this an answer to a question no one asked? Or is this a legitimate tactical development?
If memory serves, what's ironic is before the western assault rifle standards settled on the 5.56x45, the other calibers being considered was .270, which just happened to be 6.85mm.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
The Remington 6.8mm SPC is, in fact, essentially a militarized/modified .270Originally Posted by gunnut
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
The best assault rifle cartridge of the 21st century hasn't been invented yet. If something is going to replace the 5.56 NATO round, it had better be truly revolutionary, most likley CTA, or caseless. It's not worth replacing the standard round with one of marginal improvement, using dead-end technology. Nothing is wrong with the lethality of the M-16 family in 5.56, and attempts do redo the entire logistics chain for the entire DOD (not to mention our NATO partners) would be a grandiose waste of funds that are better spent elsewhere. I'am sure the 6.5 SPC can kill you deader than cancer...just like the current standard round.
Thanks,
Cato
Last edited by cato; 12 May 07, at 00:16.
I like the reinventing of the wheel process in the name of advancement, but there comes a point where you have to ask yourself, what have we got already? is it capable of doing what we wanted at the time we introduced it, and is it still capable of fulfilling those requirements today and tomorrow?
I like the WW2 calibers as you can shoot through thing's and still kill/wound or maim your intended target, .223/5,56 may or may not give you that, even hitting a head of corn will have drastic results on your accuracy on target depending on the bullets distance left to travel to the target after the hitting the interference, as many a hunter will confirm.
This is a high powered discussion, that has no conclusive answer. Some will prefer .308 and some will still want exotic calibers.
I wouldn't go wild boar (Russian) hunting with .223/5,56, because it doesn't pack the punch to put the boar down and out with one round.
I'll come back to this later as I have to go to a school open day, to keep the kid's happy.
Tony
Yet another ex-tankie of 1 RTR origin.
The bean counters simply can't afford (shocking, isn't it?) to replace their entire 5.56 inventory with the flavor of the week every time something new and only slightly improved comes out. Like somebody said above, the new round has to be truly revolutionary in order to stand a chance of being adopted by anything other than SOF.
Caseless may be the future.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
I think the point is that this new "flavor of the week" so to speak needs very few modifications, so the bean counters are more likely to be ok with it. As far as caseless ammo, I dunno what the current state of development is in the United States at least.
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea
I keep thinking along the following line's of 'don't repair something that isn't broken'.
OK., a question on all, have any lessons come out of the war on terror that 100% prove the 5,56 caliber to be inadequate in normal combat situation's???
Tony
Yet another ex-tankie of 1 RTR origin.
According to Major Glenn Dean's and Major David Lafontaine's article, Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56mm Performance in Close Quarter Battle, published in Infantry Magazine, there have been reported problems of through-and-through hits on engaged Iraqi and Afghani targets. These problems were only reported by infantry using the M16 assault rifle and the M4 carbine, and now when using the M248 SAW.
Interesting note in relation to other comments on this thread - the 6.8mm SPC was 'dropped' (to an extent) because 5.56mm magazines of the same size could fit more ammunition. Consequently, the SCAR-L, or whatever it's called now, uses a 5.56mm bullet, while the SCAR-H uses a 7.62mm bullet.
http://www.economicthought.net
Who uses the SCAR? IIRC most US SOF operators use the HK416. I know Delta uses them.
The main issue of the 5.56 is that most weapons firing them have the M4 length (14.5") barrel, which slows down the muzzle velocity enough to keep the 5.56's tumbling and fragmenting capabilities from being exploited. Even now new 5.56 rounds are being developed to increase the lethality of the caliber.
Last edited by leib10; 12 May 07, at 23:35.
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: