“This award is a clear demonstration of industry-partner commitment to providing our joint warfighters the advanced munitions they need to fight and win the nation’s wars and safeguard our national security interests,” said Maj. Gen. John T. Reim, Joint Program Executive Officer Armaments and Ammunition. “This facility’s advanced manufacturing capabilities and production capacity will also serve as deterrence against adversaries.”

The contract is the culmination of an 18-month design activity led by the Joint Program Executive Office for Armaments and Ammunition and Olin Winchester, supported by a geographically diverse and cross-functional team of U.S. government and commercial contractors. The production building and process support systems are designed to accommodate best-practice manufacturing methodologies, processes and equipment that provide flexible, sustainable and maintainable operations and ensure manufacturing readiness to meet future requirements.

Construction of the facility will be followed by a phased equipping program to integrate state-of-the-art ammunition manufacturing capability. The facility will house modern manufacturing systems designed to produce all aspects of the Next Generation Squad Weapon’s ammunition, including metal parts manufacturing, energetic operations for loading and charging ammunition, product packaging, process quality controls and testing laboratories, maintenance operations, and general-use administrative areas. At completion, LCAAP will provide high-volume capability within the organic industrial base utilizing state-of-the-art manufacturing equipment, processes, facilities and infrastructure to fulfill the Army’s NGSW ammunition requirement.

This construction program is led by the Army’s Joint Program Executive Office for Armaments and Ammunition and is executed in partnership with the Army Contracting Command-Rock Island, Joint Munitions Command, Olin Winchester and a number of other commercial partners.

When people think of the latest Russian small arms development, they naturally think of the AK-12. The design attempted to bring the venerable Kalashnikov pattern into the post-9/11 world of rails, optics, and force multiplier accessories. Though this could be done with the help of third-party accessories on the old AK platform, the AK-12 made the gun out-of-the-box ready for all the gadgets promised from Russia’s defense budget. However, anyone familiar with military procurement and weapons deployment will know that often the shiny and new platforms have to wait for production to ramp up, for budgets to be finalized, and more often, for the “good enough” older platforms to break down.

For this reason, when the war in Ukraine began, I was skeptical of the AK-12 having any significant use. The AK-74m and AK-100 series of weapons were my best guess as the most common weapons to be used. Without access to classified or insider information, I used the old Cold War yardstick of looking at the May 9^th Victory Day parades. In the years leading up to the 2022 full-scale invasion, only specialized units like airborne and naval infantry groups goose-stepped their way across Red Square with rifles strapped across their stripped chests. More troubling, or perhaps reassuring depending on your point of view, parts kits spirited into the United States and began to show that the AK-12 as the platform was not such a step forward as the Russians were hoping. Though the weapon is not the most common platform over there, it surprised me in how often it was captured by Ukrainian forces, or otherwise photographed by Russians themselves. Ukrainian forces routinely fight with captured AK-12s as a stopgap for dwindling Soviet stock, and latent production of Ukraine’s own AR platform, the UAR. The evidence shows that I was proven wrong. Russia has made a concerted effort to put the AK-12 into as many hands as possible, and what is more, the Russians are learning lessons from its deployment.

In response to these lessons, and possibly even criticism from international experts online, the weapon progresses through three iterations of the rifle: the model 2015, the 2022, and the 2023. Simultaneously, Tula, another famed site of Russian arms production, and Kalashnikov Concern have started to work on three new cartridges. In typical Russian fashion, Russia tends to copy a good design when they see one (just look at their automotive industry over the last ninety years). One possible new cartridge, the 6.02x41mm seems to compete with the US 6.8x51mm, as the US reconsiders its own formula for cartridge capability for its new generation of standard-issue small arms.

The 5.45×39 cartridge, which the AK-12 and the AK-74 platforms use, was its own response to the American use of .556 as a military cartridge in Vietnam- a high-speed micro-caliber round designed, let’s be honest, for varmint hunting, which could deliver high-energy onto a human size target. As everyone naturally remembers from high school physics, force equals mass times acceleration. Acceleration, of course, is speed squared. That means you get a big force multiplier for going faster while if you increase only mass, you get less bang for your buck than if you increase acceleration. Things get complicated in the real world, though. Things that are light also slow down with greater ease. Likewise, inertia also means that things with more mass take more energy to get going, but also take more effort to stop. It’s why we use high-mass uranium ammunition to break through tank armor like butter. Similarly for soft targets, you’d like a round that ideally passes its energy into the target without penetrating, or else that energy is lost in the pass-through. Okay, the physics lesson is over, but the Russians have been paying attention to this balancing act between speed and mass that every weapons engineer has been dealing with ever since forever.

In 2020, the Tula Cartridge Plant and Kalashnikov Concern began running the numbers on 6.7x45mm, 6.5x39mm and 6.02x41mm. The ideal round would need to have a manageable recoil impulse for automatic fire but still meet penetrating action values. After all, the goal of the round is to deal with modern body armor-clad targets, without being unmanageable for basic conscripts. The initiative selected the 6.02×41 as the most optimal candidate. To compare the round to 5.45×39 and 7.62×39, the round has superior kinetic energy at extended distances, maintaining armor-piercing capability up to 900 meters, according to Kalashnikov Concerns own publications. This is due to the bullet shape and improved external ballistic capabilities. Once again, the mission set of the cartridge matches the American 6.8x51mm, which similarly attempts to bring full-powered ballistics to intermediate cartridges to defeat Chinese and Russian body armor threats. However, this new Russian cartridge would need a weapon.

The AK-22 and SVCh:

To test the potential of the 6.02x41mm caliber, Kalashnikov Concern has modified a standard AK-12 model into the AK-22, showcasing its adaptability and versatility. AKs surprisingly accommodate re-chambering well. Additionally, the SVCh (Sniper Rifle, Large Caliber), which seeks to replace the SVD Dragunov, has been chambered for the 6.02x41mm cartridge. As an aside, there is talk of developing a new cartridge to replace the aging 7.62x54R. This could lead to the creation of a new general-purpose machine gun (GPMG) to rival the nascent U.S. 338 Norma Magnum lightweight medium machine gun program. These two short and long platforms allow for ballistic testing and overall weapon handling for the round. Though the SVCh platform, due to barrel length and inherent accuracy, is likely to see the top-level performance of the round, the Russians (to date) have avoided a return to “battle rifles” for standard-issue military arms.  Kalashnikov Concern recently completed a three-year contract to supply AK-12 rifles to the Russian Ministry of Defense, reportedly ahead of schedule. There is certainly a need for more rifles as the war progresses and resources are lost.

The future of the 6.02x41mm cartridge and the potential adoption of the AK-22 and SVCh for special military operations in Ukraine remain uncertain but intriguing possibilities. Will the Russians change horses mid-stream or will they introduce an experimental program as they did for the 7.62×39 in the waning days of the Second World War? History will show how these discussions will play out.

One critical consideration for the future of Russian assault rifles is ensuring that new developments outperform their predecessors. The AK-12 faced criticism for not significantly surpassing its predecessor and lacking widespread adoption of optics. Russia will certainly take notice of these past experiences, such as the U.S. Advanced Combat Rifle program, to create competitive offerings like the Vortex XM157. This will likely cause some hesitancy in adopting the cartridge any time soon. Beyond the AK-12, Russian firearm developers are considering the AM-17 series, Russia’s monolithic upper receiver rifle, which offers compact and full-size rifles in various calibers, with a focus on reducing weight and improving ergonomics. The platform takes on the challenge of the AK’s rigid receiver design and limited optic mounting options over the top of the receiver. The AKV-521, described as “the 500 Series AK,” addresses these challenges as well, radically changing the AK’s function to incorporate a lower receiver hinge vaguely reminiscent of an AR-15.  The RPL-20, a belt-fed light machine gun, rechambered in 6.02x41mm, could potentially fill the role of the US M249 or the new XM250. However, such a transition would require doctrinal changes in how Russia deploys and employs light machine guns and GPMGs.

Russia is entering an exploratory phase of weapon design, learning from its “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, and striving for continuous improvement in its small arms and equipment. It remains to be seen what path it will take, but the development of the AK-12 and exploration of new calibers, along with potential alternatives like the AM-17 and AKV-521, demonstrate Russia’s commitment to staying competitive in an ever-evolving global arms race. As the future unfolds, the Russian firearms industry will play a crucial role in the nation’s defense capabilities.

Art Pizza dedicated more than 38 years serving the U.S. Army in its Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) (which is now known as the Combat Capabilities Development Command, Armaments Center) at Picatinny Arsenal. In that time, he spent 17 years as a project engineer on the Mk19 grenade machine gun. He spent five years on the Green Ammo project (5.56mm and 9mm). Then he became the center’s Technical Expert on 40mm ammunition. He later went back into design and became the ARDEC Project Officer on hybrid ammunition (including mortars) and the extended range guided 40mm projectile. Pizza spent the last five years before his retirement as the Project Integrator for Medium and Small Caliber Weapons, Ammunition, and Fire Control systems.

We sat down with Pizza to discuss his long and distinguished career.

Small Arms Defense Journal: Art, thank you for your service to the U.S. Army and the 40mm weapon platforms. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to connect with Small Arms Defense Journal. You have the unique perspective of spending significant time in both 40mm weapons and 40mm ammunition. To solve the age-old question – when there is a system failure, who’s usually to blame, the ammo guy or the weapon guy?

Art Pizza: Around the late-1970s or early ‘80s, when the U.S. Army transitioned the Mark19 40x53mm weapon from the Navy, they were hand fitting/gunsmithing each weapon making 3-7 guns a month at Navy Ordnance Station in Louisville, Kentucky. They were beautiful, hand-built weapons; however, the production numbers were nowhere near the rate the Army needed. The Army was looking to make over 250 weapons a month. They end up contracting to Saco Defense (now General Dynamics Saco, ME). The complete Technical Data Package needed to be reworked. They worked closely with Saco Defense in manufacturing the weapon and improving the mass production and tolerances to make it at a high production rate weapon.

At the same time, we needed to increase the production rate of 40mm High-Velocity ammunition. The Mark19 is an advanced primer, blowback-operated weapon in which the bolt never locks into the receiver and depends on the firing pin tripping as the heavy bolt is moving forward. The velocity of the bolt moving forward is critical to the functioning of the weapon. The contracted 40mm ammunition at that time was purchased as individual components and sent to Milan AAP for final load, assembly and packing into cartridges. Most of the issues pertained to the consistent crimping of the cartridge case (a new 360-degree roll crimp vs. the old, staggered stake crimp.) Unfortunately, the failure to obturate because of the crimp issues caused stuck projectiles in the Mark19. If a second round was fired into the first projectile, on rare occasions it could cause a low-order explosion. This was called an in-bore detonation.

Other ammunition issues early on were related to improper charge weight. They old systems were using a volumetric charge measurement system. These cartridges also often had missing or double copper closure cups, and material flaws in the aluminum cartridge cases. We were looking to increase the production of ammunition from 40,000 units a year to close to 1 million. The solution was to have completely automated loading with net-weight, check weight systems and liner voltage distance transducers (LVDTs) to have a machine check for presence and location of these items.

Mark 19 issues mainly pertained to the timing of the feed system on the weapon resulting in dropped rounds and what we called at the time banana cartridges (because they would get bent by the weapon). Both caused feeding issues and could cause a lodged projectile or even a dropped round. The Mark19 represented new challenges to the infantry in the form of a high explosive machine gun in a small package of 65 pounds. Another issue was using the right lubrication in the field. The Mark19 called for LSAT lubricant, which was in short supply. A lot of feeding issues were based on a lack of adequate lubrication or lubrication not in the right location on the receiver rails or feed tray. Every gun coming out of the Saco factory was function fired for firing rates. If I remember right, we fired three guns 50,000 rounds each for endurance testing each year.

The bottom line was that most of the early stoppages were attributed to ammunition. Improvements to modern manufacturing methods and inspection reduced these to almost non-existent in the early stages. The weapon went through changes, as well. The cocking lever was modified to a two-piece design that reduced the possibility of an out-of-battery firing. Lubrication became more prevalent, and attention was spent on the timing of the feed system. If you had a problem with the Mark 19, it could usually be attributed to either the feed shuttle timing, a dirty weapon, or a broken part. One time I was called in to look at some weapons having issues. It turned out they did not have LSAT lube and were instead using WD40 and Break Free. They would run through maybe a box or two of ammo (32 to 64 rounds) before the gun stopped. We brought one tube with us, and we painted it on using a paintbrush to get through the training until a supply was sent in.

Over time, I was involved in several malfunctioning investigations and would try to get on-site within 48 hours. As an infantry weapon, we were not doing round counts (of how many rounds had been fired through the weapon) so we would never know what to expect, especially at training locations. I would say 80% were attributed to ammunition. If you are making over 1 million rounds a year, it is possible to get one or two bad rounds. The fuses were made back then at KDI and were difficult to manufacture but had double safeties (spin and setback). Most in-bores were attributed to a low order detonation from a round striking a stuck projectile lodged in the barrel.

Therefore, to answer your original question in the 40x53mm platform, at that time, it would have typically been the ammunition guy causing the problem.

SADJ: As an ammo guy, I will humbly accept the criticism. As far as the rest of the story, all I can say is wow! That is an amazing summary of decades of work. Over the course of your nearly 40 years in 40mm, what do you feel was your greatest accomplishment?

AP: The transitioning of the Mark19 to the Army and the rework of the technical data package. Getting it into full-rate production and fielding to the U.S. Army was a terrific feeling. Seeing what you worked on and talking to soldiers about the use of it in combat and how it saved their lives meant a lot to me. I met with some soldiers that were involved with the rescue mission of the “Black Hawk Down” incident in Somalia. The largest weapon they had available on the ground was two or three Mark19s mounted on HMMWVs. They were using it as an anti-sniper weapon and fire was directed by a captain using a laser pointer. The captain talked about the leveling of a hotel in Somalia that was stopping their rescue attempt and which they were receiving heavy fire from. The Mark19 took down the entire building. Knowing what we did at ARDEC saved a lot of U.S. lives, and knowing it was instrumental to the rescue operations, made it all come together for me. I still remember talking to this captain about what the Mark19 enabled him to do. It was hard not getting teary-eyed for him and me while listening to his story.

SADJ: Looking back over your career, was there a particularly fun project that you remember?

AP: The Extended Range Guided 40x46mm cartridge (EGR40) was the most fun. This projectile was for the handheld M79, M203, and the M320 low-velocity 40mm weapon. I was the technical expert for some time in 40mm ammunition engineering and I was asked if I wanted to lead a design team in the development of the early R&D effort. It was an easy choice going from riding a desk to getting back into a real hands-on engineering development project.

My senior design engineer, Ronny Alzamora, and I designed a new finned projectile and cartridge case with an improved combustion chamber. We had a team of engineers working on guidance navigation and control, camera, transmitters, laser receptor, and also working on wings and canards. Every week we were cutting metal and going to the range firing projectiles. It was all hands-on design work which you just didn’t usually see in the government. We had between 20 and 40 people working on various parts of it, along with a contractor and universities. We even did some early work with some students from West Point as a capstone project. We also looked at a rocket assist system. It was a lot of work. We pushed the envelope… a lot. We worked the engineers very hard. I was very lucky to have had that opportunity and it was a lot of hard work getting the separate teams focused on the end game. I learned a lot about human relationships and forming a team.

SADJ: What project was the most challenging?

AP: It was, by and large, the EGR40 because of the hands-on work we did.

SADJ: Are there any projects that you wish you could’ve had a second chance at it?

AP: What we learned about the LV 40x46mm, we never got a chance to put into practice. We found that course correction could not be accomplished in the time of flight and was not enough to make a difference at impact. We did successfully put a camera in the projectile, survive launch, and transmit and receive video and course correction signals. What we did learn was that the current 40mm round is spin-stabilized and lost spin and wobbled, making it difficult to hit a target at 400 meters. When we made our fin-stabilized projectile, we were more accurate out to 600 meters and had some variations that we were able to fly to 1,000 meters. Toward the end of the R&D project, we were pushing to drop the guidance (wings and canards) and convert to just a tail-fined projectile that had the ability to double the range of the standard HEDP projectile. We were able to increase HE and fragmentation by designing a new larger warhead. We could not get the funding to pursue this option and the team was dispersed. They tried to make improvements to the existing spinning projectile but could not demonstrate any major improvements with a spinning projectile. A finned projectile is more accurate and will fly further than a spin-stabilized one.

SADJ: Are there any other areas of your work that you would like to share with our readers?

AP:What we (Army Engineering) do has an impact on soldiers’ lives even if we don’t know about it. Don’t believe that it can’t be done. So many times in my career I was told that this or that wouldn’t work. I was told we would never get a camera to survive a gun launch. We were told we would not be able to transmit a clear image. You have to look at new innovative ideas and methods. Modeling, simulation, and design of experiments are the keys to success. You have to get away from the build-and-break mentality and think about the design of experiments. You need to test statistically with multiple variants to reduce iterative designs. Design decisions are made on statistical-based results.  

SADJ: Can you paint of picture of what the 40mm systems families will look like 40 years into the future?

AP: What I envision for a 40mm low-velocity grenadier M203/M320 weapon:

• 1-2 camera rounds with a GPS location that will transmit enemy positions back. Detect behind berms, buildings, or in defilade.
• Several extended-range projectiles with a higher velocity and flatter trajectory with increased range out to 1,000+ meters. Finned projectile with improved warhead and increased lethal radius.
• Several HE dual purpose projectiles with improved armor penetration.
• Possible netted projectile or an airburst anti-UAV projectile
• Specialty blast overpressure round for room clearing or tunnels.
• Specialty non-lethal projectiles.
• Specialty flechet round for room clearing. HEDP is useless in urban areas, room clearing, etc.
• Specialty door breaching projectile (may be able to do this with a blast overpressure).
• An improved fire control system that would allow the rounds to take on a semi-mortar-like role.

And, for the Mark19 High-Velocity system:

• A camera round that can be used for GPS and intelligence. These rounds will be able to provide intelligence out to 2000 + meters.
• An anti-UAV projectile; blast overpressure, net, etc.
• Flechet round for urban areas.
• Flare rounds, including IR flares, with higher altitudes and longer burn time. These are not currently in the HV systems. This would give night vision extended range.
• Improved cartridge case hemispherical powder chamber.
• Extended range, fin-stabilized rounds for ranges over 2,000+ meters.
• Improved fire control system to allow indirect fire applications.

“We are proud to provide the highest quality duty ammunition to CBP officers charged with the monumental task of border security,” said Federal Ammunition President and CEO Jason Vanderbrink. “We know they require the best ammunition in their mission to protect our borders and keep the homeland safe. This large duty contract win solidifies Federal Ammunition as a top choice for law enforcement.”

The cartridge selected was the Tactical Bonded 64-grain soft point. This single-award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract is a Strategically Sourced contract for all DHS components with a maximum quantity of 143 million rounds. The ordering period is for a total of five years.

“Federal’s Tactical Bonded line is a trusted partner for some of the most intense conditions,” said VP of Law Enforcement Sales Dave Leis. “Made exclusively for law enforcement and at our Anoka, MN headquarters, it achieves accuracy and terminal performance that defeats tough barriers with minimal change to its superior performance attributes.”

By Jay Bell

Sometimes what appears to be a good idea is not as good as it seems. That appears to be the case in the 40mm training ammunition world. The U.S. Army’s 40mm Day/Night/Thermal (DNT) effort has stalled and then restarted on the high velocity (M918E1) and on low velocity (M781E1) but has not successfully completed the First Article Acceptance Test (FAAT or FAT). These rounds were supposed to be a major leap in technology. They achieved several key requirements of the U.S. government. The Army got rid of a troublesome fuze in high velocity and added night training capability in low velocity in order to train like soldiers fight, at night. The magic material that made all this happen is called “pyrophoric iron.” Pyrophoric iron spontaneously combusts when exposed to air. It turns out that the pyrophoric iron may not be all it was cracked up to be. It has some serious downsides: It causes range fires, and allegedly, at least one round has gone off prematurely, flashing at 3,000 degrees with the gunner inches away.

Going Back

Now, the U.S. Army appears to be going back to decades-old technology to address the training requirements for the 40mm MK19 machine gun and M320/M203 weapons. The training ammunition for these platforms goes back to the later 1960s. The Army recently made an award to go back to the M918:M385 2:1 Mixed Belt configuration in December 2019. There was also a “Sources Sought” notice that came out in November 2019 to re-ramp for the projectiles, which were shelved a few years ago. The main producer had an auction in July 2019, since the DNT rounds appeared to be the path forward.

The Sources Sought announcement officially kicks off the procurement process for a 5-year “Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity” contract to buy these 1960s technology, high-velocity projectiles. The high-velocity and low-velocity images are the old school rounds—a cutaway of the M918 Flash Band smoke and the M781. These images are courtesy of the U.S. government, and the comments are from one of the early Industry meetings highlighting the deficiencies circa 2014. Images of the M918E1 and M781E1 show only the outside of the new rounds. The insides are not available for public consumption. I attempted to get pictures from the Army, however, due to all the issues with the 40mm E1s, they were not letting any more pictures out. However, all of the market intelligence seems to point back to the 2004 Ted Haeselich patent, with chemical glow stick material in the middle of the round contained in a glass ampule (numbered 21/22). This ampule breaks and mixes upon setback to give a “lava” spurt downrange at night upon impact. The #13 item would be the standard orange powder or “signal dye.” This is to signal the impact area of the round.

Original U.S. government program timeline for the DNT program (see 2013).

A Little History

Since the 1990s, the 40mm high-velocity training ammunition option has been less than desired by the U.S. military. The 40mm M918 “flash, bang and smoke” round had multiple issues:

1) It had an expensive fuze that did not always function as desired and especially had problems in soft range conditions—sand, mud, wet, etc.

2) The fuzes did not have a self-destruct feature.

3) Projectiles that did not function are “unexploded ordnance” UXO and could cause injury if kicked or picked up.

4) The M918 was known to cause range fires that would shut down the training activities in some environments.

5) The M918 had a higher hazard storage and transportation class for the round.

The USMC became so fed up with the M918 situation that in the 1990s it stopped buying the Army’s M918 and started buying the MK281 from a small German company called NICO. The MOD 0 version had an orange signal dye like the Army’s low-velocity M781. Ted Haeselich worked at NICO in the 1990s and into the early 2000s. After an extensive adventure to fully type-classify the round, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, the USMC made large purchases of the MK281. Later when NICO was purchased by German Military giant Rheinmetall, Rheinmetall started a U.S. manufacturing facility, and the orders skyrocketed. The original contracts to Germany were around $30M, and once they had the U.S. final assembly included, the contracts shot up to the $300M range. The story is a legend in the defense community.

Ted Haeselich’s patent with chemical glow stick material in the middle of the round contained in a glass ampule (numbered 21/22).

The MK281

The MK281 was perfectly simple. Basically, it is a high-velocity M781. It had a proprietary propulsion design that threads the projectile to the cartridge. The round must shear metal to fire, which is much more consistent than crimps and adhesives. The results are greater accuracy downrange. Later versions of the round added chemical luminescence aka glow sticks, to give a nighttime impact signature. It did not have a fuze, so there was ZERO chance of a dud. An additional plus is that the chemical luminescence materials are totally safe, ala Halloween glow sticks for kids. It can be eaten by kids on Halloween, and they can still eat all the candy they can handle. To meet the requirement of the DNT, the chemical properties were adjusted to add more heat to the process to be picked up with thermal imaging. The chemicals can be tweaked for colors, brightness, duration of glow and heat output.

The German cartridge design is favored by a lot of military forces around the world. Due to some old conflict over patents, the desire for 100% American-made products and a few other reasons, the MK281 has never seen full acceptance in the U.S. It does have one drawback, the chemical luminescence glows a rather long time. When you are training at night and shoot a large number of rounds, say 50 to 100, the target area will end up glowing so much that it is hard to tell when the last round hit. This phenomenon was coined as washout.

The Army Plan

The U.S. Army’s Project Manager Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM MAS) started the planning for this next wave of development a long time ago. The 40mm DNT Industry Days date back to the early 2010s. The U.S. Army’s competition to solve its need for an improved M918 would be the M918E1 and in low-velocity M781E1. The M918/M781E1s had several key requirements:

1) No or minimal range fires (M918 only);

2) No fuze to fail and reduce costs (M918 only); and

3) Day, Night and Thermal visibility and/or signal (both rounds–new for M781).

PM MAS would have companies compete for the prize of making the rounds. The winning design would get the initial multi-year development contract and be in the leading position to make the rounds for the next 50 years. The M430 effects are the visual effects from an M430A1 HEDP round at 500m. The Army wanted a similar nighttime effect as seen in night vision.

On to the Competition

Nine companies submitted bid samples for evaluation in both 40mm high-velocity and low-velocity versions. These companies spent millions of combined dollars to get their designs mature enough to withstand the rigors of DOD testing. This field included American Ordnance (AO), Amtec, Chemring Ordnance, Cyalume Technologies, General Dynamics (GD), Rheinmetall, ST Kinetics (Singapore) and Universal Defense. Some did not even make it to the testing phase; some failed out early in testing.

These nine were down-selected to two competitors for high velocity—Amtec and AO Ordnance—and two for low velocity—Amtec and GD. Would the 40mm powerhouse Amtec, continue to dominate the 40mm world? Or would the large businesses with their success in ordnance in AO and general small/medium caliber ammunition expertise allow GD a win? Ultimately, it was AO as the high-velocity winner and GD as the low-velocity winner. The MK281 was in the mix along with several other varieties; however, it did not make the cut.

The competition had several deciding elements. The most important was pyrophoric or chemical luminescence. The best attributes of pyrophoric material were: a high heat output for thermal, bright visual light/explosion for the naked eye and lower hazard for storage and shipping. The best attributes of chemical luminescence were that it was totally inert and had zero risks of range fires. The negatives for pyrophoric was the “potential” for range fires. The downside of the chemical material was that it is difficult to see at 1,200m with the naked eye and the washout effect, as described above. The winning solution ended up being a pyrophoric solution for both rounds, which appears to be a key reason the programs have had so much difficulty.

Magic Material

Pyrophoric materials are processed iron particles that are contained in a glass ampule without air. When the ampule breaks and is exposed to air, it oxidizes quickly—actually, very quickly, which results in a lot of heat and a lot of light. It is technically a flash of light; some people might mistake it for a small explosion. The waste material is iron powder. It can be thrown away without concern about hazardous waste. It’s pretty awesome. The more interesting attribute is that if you break the top of an ampule off, the material will just simmer. You would just notice a color change and a slow process happening. If you turn the ampule over, you get a sparkler light show all the way down to the ground. If you smash it against the ground at 700m per second, you are back to the explosion-like effect.

The downside of pyrophoric material and what caused the program to be placed under a temporary Stop Work order is that the rounds were causing a lot of range fires—there was a safety incidence where the round in the chamber was broken and flashed in the weapon (potentially injuring the gunner)—and other performance issues. The M918E1 has a plastic ogive, and underneath it are some pretty powerful materials. The MK281 also has a plastic ogive; however, if this round breaks in the cycling of the MK19 machine gun, the glow stick material is not going to harm anyone.

Low-Velocity Status

The M781E1 delay issues are a little less well known. GD has not made it through first article testing, where AO is in production and has been awarded option quantities already. Is it the same pyrophoric range fire issues as M918E1, or is it something else? The drop test for pyrophoric could be to blame. The standard M781 could never pass a NATO standard 1M drop test. By the look of the design, I imagine that it would still be a problem. The pyrophoric material would make things interesting if it broke upon impact.

I have always been critical of the U.S. government’s typically painstakingly slow methods and processes. They test, test again and then test some more. Then repeat all those tests in multiple temperature phases. Once you are sure you have it nailed, they have someone else try to repeat the results exactly. It can be quite maddening at times, and you wonder how anything gets done. The 40mm DNT program seemed to be moving at light speed. It was extremely impressive. This current situation has given me a greater appreciation for taking it slow. The U.S. government goes slow when one item has been changed. In this case a little more so.

Pyrophoric materials have been successfully used in other military areas like aircraft countermeasure flares. However, it is still a newer process. The processes and applicant for 40mm had to be developed and built for these programs. Sometimes plans don’t work out at well as one would have hoped. This may be the case with pyrophoric—that it is just a little ahead of its time. There are a lot of people in the industry that think the M918E1 and M781E1 are doomed to failure. They believe the range fires might result in the M918E1 and M781E1 to be shelved, and we will go back to the 1960s designs, at least for a little while, and then either back to chemical luminescence or a newer material.

M918E1 the high-velocity round reducing the UXO hazard for the U.S. government.

The government’s original timeline from a 2013 Industry Day shows the program transitioning to full-rate production over / around 5 years. In reality, it took about 6 years. If they have to go back and re-invent the wheel, it will take another 5 years. These things just take time. This is one case where too new and not enough testing set things back, maybe a decade. Only time will tell.

The term Next Generation can mean a lot of things. I recently wrote an article on U.S. Army Next Generation 40mm Day/Night Thermal training ammunition technology. The results are still “to be determined.” I took a hard look at some Next Generation weapons and ammunition in this article. What happens when Next Generation weapons and ammo collide?

Maxim Defense continues to impress with its Next Generation focus and out-of-the-box thinking. Maxim Defense’s short-barreled rifle (SBR) designs are impressive and enthralling enough to be selected by SOCOM for further evaluations. Its success with the U.S. government has carried over to the commercial market with personal defense weapons (PDWs). Commercially, the weapons also have gained a following in the personal defensive arena and in the concealed weapon subcategory of untold possibilities.

I first got my hands on one of these weapons at the 2019 Special Operations Forces Industry Conference (SOFIC). Ammunition and guns are in surprisingly short supply at SOFIC, as the focus is much more on electronics. I was drawn like a moth to the flame.

The weapons are as visually impressive as they are physically stout and well-engineered. The construction is remarkable; some AR platform weapons feel flimsy. The Maxim rifles remind me of HK weapons. The 18.75-inch weapon overall length is impressive, and the punch packed by these weapons blows pistols out of the water. The 5.5-inch barrel length is also amazing. If you add in the massive increase in accuracy over a pistol and the potential magazine capacity, I imagine that many private security forces are in line to grab these SBRs and re-arm their teams.

What About the Ammo?

Defensive pistol ammunition is numerous and widespread. Defensive rifle ammunition, not so much. All the major ammunition producers have versions of defensive pistol ammunition, and the number of niche producers is also a mile long. Many designs go beyond the typical hollow-point designs. There have been more niche designs going back over the last 40-plus years than I can remember. Who remembers the big left-wing hysteria concerning the Black Talon bullets back in the early 1990s? More recently, G2 Research Ammunitions’ fragmenting solid bullets were a big item and huge YouTube sensation. Maxim Defense knew that the weapons needed special rifle ammunition to pair with these very special rifles. The company could have gone with one of the usual suspect bullets in rifle calibers. Instead, Maxim went a whole new direction. In retrospect, it seems only logical that a Next Generation defensive rifle would have its personalized Next Generation defensive ammunition.

Maxim has a truly innovative rifle ammunition product that works superbly in these SBRs. Specialized weapons need specialized ammunition to fully capitalize on the performance limitations of lower velocities with short barrels. The Maxim Defense team saw that if customers did not use the proper ammunition, the effectiveness of the weapons would be massively diminished. To complete Maxim’s total weapon system, the ammunition needed to be the Next Generation to maximize the performance needs exactly specified and to be available to the customers. There are some potential solutions in the marketplace; however, consistent access to the customer is always difficult with niche products. Just as high-performance engines will barely work on low-octane gas, these SBRs need high octane ammo, and Maxim took charge of the situation.

TUI® Projectiles

Fort Scott Munitions™ (FSM®) and Maxim Defense worked together on a 6.5CM project for the U.S. government. Upon starting this relationship, Maxim Defense approached FSM to build and optimize a full-ammo solution for the SBR in critically short-barrel lengths for the PDX and MDX Weapon Lines. Six separate ammo variants were designed and optimized; FSM is Maxim Defense’s Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).

It was not enough to just take one of the top defensive rifle bullets and load it. Maxim Defense knew that the FSM had developed something special with their Tumble Upon Impact™ (TUI®) projectiles. The TUI projectiles are patented Next Generation technology, just like the Maxim rifles. These TUI projectiles increase the effectiveness of Maxim’s weapon system and accomplish impressive terminal ballistic cavities without substantial fragmentation all the way down to minimal velocities and/or until they become unstable.

The impressive part of the TUI projectiles is that they have a solid tip without any flutes/grooves/slots or other special effects that might impede the successful feeding, firing and cycling out of the weapon. These will hold up and function in extreme environments. They surpass the criteria of both expanding and fragmenting projectiles in ballistic gel. These designs and features are only more critical in rifle calibers. Maxim has successfully achieved a winning combination of weapon and ammunition.

These solid copper projectiles appear to maintain extremely high percentages of their initial weight in the pistol ammunition. Many tests indicate 100% retention through ballistic gels. This ensures greater energy transfer, consistency in performance and devastating wound channels. Monolithic solids are great for not having a jacket to separate from the core, which is also very important in close-combat situations where the fragments can be a hazard to the shooter. The projectile stays together in one piece, causes significant damage and gives more knockdown power. The testing for the rifle ammunition appears to have very similar results to the pistol ammunition.

The short barrel ammunition comes in three calibers and six total varieties:

The projectiles being made out of 100% copper also add a nice element of being lead-free. This is ideal for the close-combat training scenarios in which this product will be used. This also opens up use in lead-restricted ranges and states around the country. All the ammo is Match Grade.

After some R&D, FSM recalled the old 5.56mm M855 round that sometimes accidentally tumbled or keyholed. This failure was a huge problem for the M855. However, a tumbling defensive bullet could offer some impressive performance if done right. What if they could make this happen on purpose and with 100% consistency? This would make for some very effective defensive ammunition. They started working on the concept and came up with two patents.

Considerations

Some elements must be considered: First, it is not a traditional FMJ, and it only tumbles on water-based solutions (i.e., water jugs, ballistic gelatin). If it is fired into a wood 2×4, metal, drywall or vehicle windshield, it will not tumble—period. However, for their key customer and the defensive ammo market, these were acceptable parameters.

The energy released because of the tumble is impressive. This is because of multiple elements. First, the bullets have 100% weight retention. With no loss of mass from fragments shedding, the energy is retained. Second, in ballistic gelatin, the projectile will tumble and then briefly stabilize and stay on its trajectory. Then, it will start to tumble for a bit and then track straight again. FSM noted, “Typically, the projectile will get two to three ‘tumble then brief stabilization’ cycles in a 6x6x16-inch-long ballistic gelatin block.” Impressive.

TUI comes in two different materials. The first is solid brass, and the second is copper. The brass version is called “solid brass spun” or SBS. The copper version is similarly “solid copper spun” or SCS. FSM also has a full line of brass projectiles in pistol calibers (.45, 9mm, .40 S&W, 10mm, .380, .357 SIG) that are only LE/military.

The product is well-designed and versatile. It is not a one-trick pony. Ultimate versatility is an objective FSM strived to achieve with the TUI ammunition. They believe the TUI ammo is a great military or law enforcement round. It checks all the boxes: it goes through the barrier, has great accuracy and has an excellent performance in ballistic gel. However, with the same ammunition, you can also go hunting for coyote and even buffalo. Better yet, it has great long-range utility. An FSM employee recently used his 6.5 Creedmoor, 123-grain, TUI factory-boxed ammunition to take a deer at 100 yards (and dropped him cold), and the same round is capable of a distance of 1.39 miles (2,446.4 yards) to hit a 30-inch target twice on a string of 10 with a factory Ruger Precision Rifle (see YouTube video at Longshot Video). Yes, the TUI projectile is still stable out at that distance, despite tumbling in ballistic gelatin. TUI is the complete package—self-defense, hunting and long-range performance.

A key aspect of the ammunition is that there is no mechanical feature to rely on, nothing to fail. So many of the other high-performance bullets are counting on the consistency of the tooling and keeping a close eye on tooling wear and performance. Of course, this means that the bullets made on fresh tooling are going to perform slightly differently than the last rounds before a tool change. I am aware that some of these performance bullets could require tool change in as little as 5,000 to 10,000 rounds manufactured. This all happens on a multi-station transfer press that is running at 60 parts per minute—no small task.

I queried on what feature of the bullet and the bullet design is critical. The answer is not just one thing. It is everything—the tip, the ogive and the boat tail. It can take strenuous testing and a lot of time to develop a single round. It took 1 year to develop the .300 Blackout 190 subsonic. It is one of the few truly subsonic rounds at +/- 950 to 960 fps. It will also function without a suppressor on the Maxim Defense SBR weapons.

Superior Weapon System

Maxim Defense produces high-quality firearms that enhance their ammo and make it perform well. The quality of FSM’s ammo and the weapons mesh so well, they result in an overall superior weapon system. I suspect that both Maxim Defense and Fort Scott Munitions are going to be long-term players in the market.

So, what happens when Next Generation weapons and ammo collide? Nothing short of awesome.

Manufacturers are zealous to recover their research, development and manufacturing investments. Firearms manufacturing and retailer sales are all about profit, while government program managers who make the big number buys are eager to score a win for their particular program as a matter of job security. In the end, it comes down to a hit or miss for the consumer and even that depends upon how technically savvy the individual consumer may be. How then is one supposed to decide?

Ammunition performance testing takes many forms as does its data analysis. Formal operational testing (OT), based on a formal operational test plan (search OPTEVFOR), is an objective means by which operational testing performance can be achieved. Its resulting data can be validated and analyzed without subjective bias. OT requires that a formal operational test plan is strictly followed, and that presents both a problematic and expensive process for ammunition and firearms developers. The default is to provide a selected military or law enforcement unit(s) the opportunity to “shoot” a particular new weapon and/or ammunition. Based upon their subjective feedback of that particular experience, the product is deemed “tested.” Thus, glowing product praise is routinely assigned, no matter how objectively unqualified it might be, and everyone in the consumer community largely accepts the product as tried, tested and proven.

But history offers more insight. The Cold War led to small arms procurement primarily focused on NATO interoperability, and the 5.56 NATO-firing AR platform became the assault rifle mainstay. As a result of our wars in Southeast Asia and the Middle East spanning the past 60 years, attention has been given to the war-fighting adequacy of the U.S. military’s current in-service arsenal of small arms and ammunition.

Much of today’s ammunition hype revolves around “new” rounds like the 6.5mm Creedmoor and the 6.8mm Remington SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge). In reality, there is nothing new about either except for the substitution of caliber designation with a millimeter designation and a slightly altered cartridge case and load. For example, the 6.5mm uses the same bullet as the .264 Winchester Magnum (.264 WinMag), and the 6.8mm uses the same bullet as the .270 Winchester. Both the.264 WinMag and the .270 Winchester have been available off-the-shelf for half a century.

What is the difference between the comparable legacy calibers and the “new” rounds? The answer is not a whole lot that matters. Felt recoil between the same caliber and corresponding millimeter cartridges is comparable and so is the projectile’s delivered energy on target using comparable loads. Accuracy claims are always an amalgamation consisting of a number of factors contributing to operational performance, but there are two fundamental elements that can be used to interpolate a round’s effectiveness—projectile weight (mass) and velocity. Projectile shape is also a contributing factor to ballistic flight characteristics. For example, each bullet diameter (caliber) has an individual “ideal” length to diameter, to shape, to weight ratio that provides its best ballistic trajectory (stable flight and range) at a given velocity (faster is not necessarily more accurate). That “ideal” formula is well understood and generally followed by ammunition manufacturers; although there is some really ridiculous ammunition available that has absolutely zero operational purpose other than it’s “cool looking.”

Another accuracy factor is barrel quality (material construction and machining accuracy) and barrel life expectancy. For the purpose of comparative example, a rifle or machine gun chambered in 7.62 NATO has an average barrel life of between 5,000 and 8,000 rounds. The same rifle or machine gun chambered in 6.5 Creedmoor has an average barrel life of only 1,200 to 1,500 rounds. The Creedmoor’s significantly reduced lifespan is the result of its higher velocity’s wear and tear on the gun’s bore. And the answer is “YES” to the question you’re probably thinking: Can’t the gun barrel be manufactured from a stronger alloy that resists wear? The problem is the cost of using exotic materials.

Comparatively, the combat-proven 7.62 NATO round (.308 Winchester) generally performs better all around than either the .264 or the .270, with recognition that the counterargument to this falls into niche categories outside general use. Additionally, the 7.62 NATO cartridge is available in a wider range of bullet weights, shapes and off-the-shelf loads. Therefore, replacing the 7.62 NATO round with either the 6.5mm or 6.8mm round for general service use has questionable operational advantage or a clear return on investment (ROI).

In a weight reduction effort, the feasibility of caseless ammunition, polymer-cased ammunition and a hybrid metal-based with polymer-cased upper cartridge was explored as a weight and cost reduction solution several decades ago. None of these were proven to be operationally suitable, combat reliable or cost-effective, and, therefore, none were adopted.

Caseless ammunition made its way into the U.S. Army’s Advanced Combat Rifle Program, but caseless ammunition was little more than a flash in the ammunition pan when the Army cancelled the program because of reliability issues and the ammo’s lack of interoperability with all other conventional rifles and pistols. However, it did help pave the way to Textron’s development of Cased-Telescoped Ammunition (CTA) for use in uniquely designed small arms that fire it.

With that as the segue, we will briefly examine new ammunition offerings available today and on the horizon. Some make sense, and some are plainly pushing the envelope of sound operational logic, not to mention return on investment—you be the judge.

Cased-Telescoped Ammunition (CTA)

In partnership with Heckler and Koch (HK) and Winchester, Textron has developed the next generation of CTA (with a focus on the 6.8mm projectile). Winchester–Olin is manufacturing the CTA while HK has designed the special magazine and belt-fed, gas-operated CTA weapons suite and will produce these specialized guns in conjunction with Textron. This has become known as the Cased-Telescoped Small Arms Systems (CTSAS) program.

What exactly is CTA? It’s a very curious-looking ammunition design that doesn’t track with any conventional ammunition shape. The CTA cartridge looks like a polymer tube about 1 ½ inches long and ½ inch in diameter. On the breech end it has a conventional primer in its center. On the muzzle end it has what looks like a second smaller tube inserted inside the larger outer tube. The smaller tube carries a 6.8mm bullet inside (by the way, this cartridge is fully scalable to larger calibers).

Here’s how it works. The gun’s firing pin strikes the primer, igniting the compacted smokeless powder propellant contained in the main tube body. As the gas pressure increases, the inside tube, holding the conventional 6.8mm round, extends forward, telescoping into the gun’s chamber, creating the necessary gas check (seal). As combustion pressure rapidly develops inside the cartridge case, the round (6.8mm bullet) releases from its telescoped tube (similar to the bullet leaving a conventional metallic cartridge case’s neck) and begins its transit down the gun’s rifled bore spinning into stable ballistic flight, just like any other conventionally fired bullet. The important point here is that a comparable conventional load with comparable bullet will perform the same throughout its ballistic flight downrange.

There are some advantages to cased-telescoped ammunition. Round for round, CTA is about 40% lighter than metallic cased ammunition. In addition, the CTA rounds use compacted propellant, which has better burn characteristics so it requires less case volume compared to conventional, loosely filled cartridge case propellant. This means CTA is approximately 12% the volume of similar caliber metallic cased ammunition, so it’s lighter and takes less overall space.

CTA ballistics, as mentioned previously, are comparable to conventional ammunition of the same caliber and bullet weight. CTA advertises improved accuracy, but that is scientifically questionable. Accuracy is the sum total of multiple variables such as the gun barrel quality, twist, caliber, bullet weight, balance and aerodynamic shape, velocity, gun sights being used, environmental conditions, shooter’s ability and so on, not the ammunition and/or gun alone.

CTSAS guns are about 20% lighter overall. For example, the 6.8mm CTA-firing machine gun variant weighs in at 14.5 pounds, compared to the Army’s current 21.8-pound M240L lightweight (7.62 NATO) machine gun. Additionally, because CTA ammunition telescopes, the CTSAS machine gun’s chamber is separated from the barrel; therefore lowering the risk of “cook off” during periods of sustained automatic fire. This claim may be true, but there is questionable thermodynamics involved for heat dissipation.

Conventional metallic ammunition extracts about 60% of the combustion-generated heat with each spent cartridge. The remaining 40% sinks into the gun barrel and receiver. That’s why guns get hot when they’re fired rapidly. Polymer (CTA) ammunition doesn’t carry (sink) heat; so how is the heat from propellant combustion managed and dissipated from the gun? Unquestionably, there is heat generated by propellant combustion, and that heat must go somewhere. Textron claims less heat is generated by its compacted propellant, but currently provides no clear explanation within the known Law of Thermodynamics that accounts for the dissipation of heat from sustained automatic fire.

There are additional legal and treaty issues needing resolution by Textron and (mostly) Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier, before CTSAS can be adopted into general service use by U.S. forces. CTA requires a special family of cased-telescoped weapons to fire it. Conventional weapons cannot be converted to fire CTA and vice versa. That means neither the ammunition nor the CTSAS weapons are NATO-interoperable and therefore fall outside the NATO STANAG requiring ammunition interoperability.

Further, U.S. law dictates U.S. forces interoperability with our NATO allies. This leaves cased-telescoped weapons and ammunition in the “special use” category, and that in itself is a legal show stopper for its replacement as DoD’s main battle rifle and light machine gun dedicated to CTA. Nonetheless, cased-telescoped ammunition and the special weapons that fire it are a step forward in the world of firearms technology, and Textron is leading that charge. For more information see textronsystems.com.

SIG SAUER’s Hybrid Bi-metal Cartridge

On September 3, 2019, SIG SAUER, Inc., Newington, NH, announced the official award of a U.S. Army contract for the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW). The primary objectives set forth by the U.S. Army for the NGSW-AR was a weapon with the firepower and range of a machine gun, coupled with the precision and ergonomics of a rifle. The award encompassed the complete SIG SAUER system consisting of SIG’s hybrid ammunition, a lightweight machine gun and rifle that includes suppressors. Utilized in both weapons, SIG’s 6.8mm (.27 caliber) hybrid ammunition is an interesting advance in ammunition, design, manufacturing and material metallurgy, not because of the 6.8mm round it fires, but rather the bi-metal cartridge.

SIG’s newly developed, high-pressure, 6.8x51mm hybrid ammunition is designed for increased penetration at greater range. SIG’s hybrid ammunition also achieves an important 20% reduction in cartridge weight by attaching a brass cartridge case (body) to a proprietary metallic alloy base. That’s right—a bi-metal cartridge case using dissimilar ferrous and non-ferrous metals that somewhat resembles an off-the-shelf 7.62x51mm NATO bottleneck rimless metallic cartridge.

In order to prevent metal seam separation between the alloy cartridge base and brass case upper, a lock washer (of sorts) is used between the two metals as a means to prevent case and base separation from dissimilar expansion coefficients when fired. The method SIG is using to manufacture their hybrid ammunition is otherwise proprietary, and their engineering department is not returning calls.

As outlined in the recent award, SIG SAUER will deliver a complete SIG SAUER system inclusive of the SIG SAUER 6.8x51mm hybrid ammunition, lightweight machine gun, rifle and accompanying suppressors. SIG has historically manufactured quality firearms, and no doubt their superb track record will continue. Visit sigsauer.com.

Polymer Composite Cartridge Case

It’s being manufactured and it’s available now. True Velocity, headquartered in Garland, TX, currently offers 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, .338 NORMA, .50 BMG and 12.7×108 ammunition in its proprietary polymer composite case design. True Velocity’s composite case manufacturing utilizes scalable technology from 5.56 NATO through 14.5mm. This production technology allows rapid design modifications. True Velocity can also meet your packaging needs, including linked belts and individual rounds. Because they’re using composite munitions, they can offer the casing in multiple colors to match the operating environment, thereby lowering the battle signature. They can further color-code the composite casing to match a projectile type and load, making it distinctive and readily distinguishable from other ammunition. Remarkably, True Velocity loads all projectiles and powders with match-grade accuracy.

Unlike metallic-cased ammunition, the composite casing does not carry heat. True Velocity claims the weapon remains cooler, and the spent casing is cool to the touch. They also claim their ammunition provides substantial flash reduction because the gases exiting the bore are not superheated and therefore are below the flash point. These claims are made without the benefit of formal OT (as previously discussed).

True Velocity’s composite case ammo is easier to carry because it’s 30% lighter than brass casing ammunition of the same quantity and caliber. With casings that are 100% recyclable, the reduction in heavy metal byproducts also translates to reduced environmental impact. True Velocity’s “Lean is Our Culture” slogan is indeed a fact. True Velocity’s agile production technology reduces the required manufacturing footprint by 80% when compared to a traditional brass casing manufacturing facility. See tvammo.com.

Tracer Ammunition

Traditional tracer rounds have a bullet base filled with a magnesium-based pyrotechnic incendiary compound that‘s ignited when the round is fired, leaving a bright glowing trail (usually red or orange in color) behind the bullet as it streaks downrange. This allows the shooter to visually track (trace) the rounds’ actual flight path. Tracer ammo is most often linked into machine-gun-belted ammunition to provide the gunner immediate visual feedback of his bullet string’s trajectory and target hit proximity. This is especially useful when using fully automatic fire against moving targets and suppressing enemy fire.

However, this bright inflight glowing tracer tail comes at a price. It marks the bullet’s entire flight path from beginning to end, making the firing source location easily identifiable from both the sending and receiving ends. Additionally, because tracer rounds are incendiary and burn until their pyrotechnic is fully consumed, they will usually set fire to anything flammable where they come to rest downrange. For this reason, tracers are prohibited at nearly every indoor and outdoor range in the U.S. with the exception of specially designated military ranges. Another shortcoming of tracer rounds is that they are traditionally only available in NATO calibers, e.g., 5.56, 7.62 and .50 caliber, and this misses a huge consumer market of sportsmen shooters who shoot a variety of rifle and pistol calibers.

Can tracer ammunition be made non-incendiary, safe for indoor and outdoor range use, cost-effective and available across multiple popular calibers? Headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ, with its manufacturing facility in Payson, AZ, AMMO, Inc. (ammo-inc.com) has developed a cool non-incendiary tracer solution they named “Streak Ammunition.”

Streak Ammunition is a non-incendiary “cool tracer.” They achieve this by replacing the incendiary magnesium-based pyrotechnic with a non-flammable eco-friendly strontium aluminate (glow-in-the-dark) powder mixed with clear enamel. These new phosphorescent tracer rounds achieve a similar visual nighttime effect by using the same glow-in-the-dark ingredient used in many watch faces, gauge faces and kids’ glow-in-the-dark toys. When exposed (charged) to a light source, strontium aluminate compound glows brightly for a limited time after that light source exposure is removed. Streak Ammunition uses the flash from firing the gunpowder propellant as the light source to activate (charge) the strontium aluminate compound coating the rear cavity of the tracer bullet.

At night, the visual effect is nearly identical to a conventional tracer round as it streaks downrange. Another very important advantage is that Streak Ammunition tracers offer a restricted 30-degree rear-viewing angle. This means these tracers can only be viewed from the shooter’s end, not the receiving end, thus keeping the shooter’s position unmarked. Streak Ammunition’s disadvantage is that it simply does not glow bright enough to see in bright daylight. This ammunition is now in full production and will soon be available off-the-shelf in several colors for most popular calibers.

Saboted Light Armor Penetrator (SLAP)

SLAP ammunition is uniquely designed to penetrate lightly armored vehicles and aircraft and barrier armor more efficiently than conventional steel-core, or tungsten-core, armor-piercing ammunition. Designed for use in small arms, SLAP rounds can be safely fired through a conventional gun’s rifled bore without damage or any special gun modification.

Think of a shotgun shell as an analogy. In the same manner a shotgun shell uses a plastic shot cup (wad) to carry the shot down the bore, SLAP design incorporates a polymer sabot (sabot is a French word meaning wooden shoe) that carries a lesser diameter tungsten penetrator projectile down the gun’s bore. So—the sabot’s outside diameter matches the bore diameter and carries within it a smaller diameter, lightweight, high-density, sub-caliber projectile down the gun’s bore. As the sabot leaves the gun barrel, the sabot “undergoes” immediate and profound aerodynamic lift that instantaneously strips it away from the sub-caliber projectile it’s carrying. In this manner, the sabot comes to an almost immediate halt, and it “slingshots” the SLAP projectile (it’s carrying) to extreme velocity. By design, the spin-stabilized, sub-caliber SLAP projectile has greatly increased sectional density (mass), especially if it employs a heavy metal tungsten or depleted uranium core.

SLAP ammunition has been in production since 1985 by the Winchester Cartridge Company and Olin Corporation (olin.com). The sabot that contains the sub-caliber SLAP round is manufactured by Cytec Industries. SLAP ammunition is produced in two NATO calibers, 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) and 12.7×99mm NATO (.50 BMG). The 7.62×51mm round is designated as the M948 (standard) and M959 (tracer). The 12.7×99mm (.50 BMG) round is designated as the M903 (standard) and M962 (tracer). SLAP, by nature of its design, cannot be efficiently scaled down below 7.62mm. However, it is easily scaled-up to larger bore guns and renamed “APDS” (armor-piercing discarding sabot).

Armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS)

APDS is a form of kinetic energy projectile fired from a rifled-barrel gun to attack armored targets. APDS rounds are sabot rounds, firing a spin-stabilized armor-penetrating sub-projectile. Like SLAP ammunition, its small arms equivalent, APDS ammunition can nearly double the armor penetration of a small caliber gun, compared to armor-piercing (AP), armor-piercing—capped (APC), or armor-piercing, capped, ballistic-capped (APCBC) projectiles.

APDS technology is not new, and it actually preceded SLAP ammunition. In fact, its development began in France prior to the 1940 Franco-German Armistice. Resulting from the project engineers fleeing France to escape the Nazi’s occupation, APDS projectile technology was honed in the United Kingdom from 1941 to 1944. In mid-1944, the UK was first to operationally field the APDS projectile for use in their QF 6-pounder anti-tank gun.

However, these early APDSs had low sectional density and high aerodynamic drag, resulting in poor “carrying power” (meaning the round rapidly lost velocity and penetration over distance). As a means to eliminate these negative factors, the engineers designed a flowerpot-shaped outer sheath (sabot) that was immediately discarded upon leaving the bore.

Today, the front end of the pot (sabot) has 3 to 4 petals, depending on the bore diameter, that are covered with a bore-centering band (usually made from a sacrificial nylon derivative material). This design provides the high-density APDS core / projectile with unencumbered bore acceleration, high muzzle velocity and downrange carrying power while eliminating the consequences of high drag in flight.

Newer medium-caliber APDS cores are constructed from a frangible high-density alloy. These projectiles are called Frangible Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, or FAPDS, when employed as APDS types. When they’re used as full-caliber projectiles they’re called FRAP rounds (Frangible Armor Piercing) because during target penetration, the projectile’s frangible core fragments into numerous high-velocity pieces. On a lightly armored target, the effect is akin to a high explosive incendiary round, but with the addition of a lethal cloud of dense high-velocity fragments penetrating deep into the target’s interior—it’s not survivable for those inside. When striking heavy armor, the FAPDS’s effect is more akin to a standard APDS, only with higher fragmentation of the core and subsequently, higher lethality if the armor is penetrated.

Penetrator with Enhanced Lateral Effect (PELE)

In case you’re not sufficiently mind-boggled by now, the FAPDS is also known as a Penetrator with Enhanced Lateral Effect (PELE). But PELE has some very subtle design modifications. It is fuzeless ammunition without any explosives that leverages its material design composition to get an explosive-like physical effect upon impact with a hard armored surface. PELE’s effectiveness derives from its design and material construction using the combination of two dissimilar density materials.

The projectile’s outer body is constructed from high-density steel or tungsten material. The inner core consists of a low-density aluminum or plastic material. When the PELE projectile impacts a target, the high-density outer component penetrates the target material. However, the low-density inner component, which has a much lower penetration performance, is dramatically slowed upon target impact. This inertia-to-mass mismatch causes a tremendous instantaneous pressure build-up inside the projectile that easily reaches values in the region of gigabars and mimics the effects of a high-explosive-shaped charge against the target.

The result is the projectile disintegrates (explodes) into a large number of highly lethal, high-velocity fragments that will punch through nearly most material like light armor, block walls, frame, body armor, etc. Better, the number and size of the fragments is adjustable as a function of the projectile‘s physical dimensions and material construction. Even better, the PELE effect is scalable to larger calibers and can be achieved by using non-exotic standard ammunition construction materials.

Reduced Range Cartridge

Nammo, headquartered in Raufoss, Norway, has developed and qualified a new .50-caliber, Reduced Range (RR) cartridge for training on smaller ranges where the normal 5-mile downrange danger area must be radically reduced. While not designed as a training round, it absolutely provides affordable training options never before available. The downrange safety template of the cartridge is the same as standard 7.62mm NATO rounds, so warfighters and law enforcement snipers can train with .50-caliber weapons at ranges previously approved for 7.62mm and below, or by carving up an existing .50-caliber range into several smaller sites. Some users are also interested in the RR cartridge for combat in urban operations where line-of-sight is limited, and there is high concern about collateral damage. The Nammo round has the same ballistics as NATO standard .50-caliber ammo to about 800m (875 yards), and accuracy has been demonstrated to be better than standard .50-caliber Ball/AP ammo within this range. The Nammo .50-caliber Reduced Range ammunition is qualified in accordance with NATO specifications and already fielded by several countries for use in both machine guns and rifles. Visit nammo.com.

EXACTO—Command-Guided Ammunition

EXACTO (Extreme Accuracy Tasked Ordnance) is the research and development (R&D) program headed by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) for round guidance technology, involving a combination of “fire and forget” technologies currently applied to guided .50-caliber rounds. EXACTO .50-caliber rounds can make course corrections in mid-flight. As part of a DARPA-funded project, Teledyne and Orbital ATK’s Armament Systems Division developed this round and its guidance system. While the program officially ended in 2017, the EXACTO program developed new approaches and advanced capabilities to improve the range and accuracy of sniper systems beyond the current state of the art.

DARPA’s program manager, Jerome Dunn, described it like this: “EXACTO’s specially designed ammunition [employs] a real-time optical guidance system to track and direct the [.50-caliber] projectiles to their targets by compensating for weather, wind, target movement and other factors that can otherwise impede successful hits. True to DARPA’s mission, EXACTO demonstrated what was once thought impossible: the continuous guidance of a small-caliber bullet to target. Live-fire demonstration from a standard rifle showed that EXACTO is able to hit moving and evading targets with extreme accuracy at sniper ranges unachievable with traditional rounds. Fitting EXACTO’s guidance capabilities into a small .50-caliber size [round] is a major breakthrough and opens the door to what could be possible in future guided projectiles across all calibers.”

Exactly how they’ve achieved this quantum advancement in bullet guidance can only be imagined. It is believed they use a spin-stabilized projectile with internal and/or external aero-actuation control methods equipped with projectile guidance technologies, tamper proofing and macro-power supplies. The round’s guidance system consisting of advanced sighting, optical resolution and clarity technology components remains classified, as does the bullet’s guidance technology. It is likely that this program has been moved into DARPA’s “black” program side. Perhaps one day guided bullet technology will emerge and become available, but as of today that is only wishful thinking. For more information see darpa.gov.

12-Ga. Shotgun Special Purpose Ammo

The 12-gauge shotgun is perhaps the most versatile, most widely used gun for sporting purposes, home defense and law enforcement. As such, 12-gauge shotgun ammunition offers the widest selection of loads available for any off-the-shelf gauge or caliber gun. Shot-filled shells are most commonly used for across-the-broad applications, but there are other far more exotic loads available designed for special purpose use. While most of these shells aren’t cheap ($5 dollars or more per round), they generally perform as advertised. Here are some examples.

Triple Threat Round. This home defense specialty shotgun round is available in a variety of different names. It’s loaded in three layers consisting of a half-length slug, No. 8 birdshot and No.4 buckshot. Its effectiveness is limited by the range / distance / proximity to the target. The advantage a slug + birdshot + buckshot combo offers in a single shot is debatable, but the marketing concept sounds lethal.

Flechette Round. Flechette is a French word that means little arrow. Flechettes resemble miniature steel arrows. Like arrows, they have arrow-style points and stabilizing fins on the trailing end. The 1-inch long, 12-gauge versions are bundled inside the 12-gauge shot cup (wad) which acts as a sabot to carry the flechette bundle down the shotgun’s bore, releasing them into ballistic flight as the shot cup strips off from aerodynamic drag. The flechettes continue downrange and pierce through (like a straw in an apple) nearly anything they encounter with the exception of hard armor, stone, steel, thick wood and bone. They can penetrate soft body armor with little effort, and they will completely pass through soft body tissue, leaving little visible surface damage. The maximum effective range is about 30 to 40 yards. U.S. Navy SEALs first used 12-gauge flechette rounds during the Vietnam War, but found later in the war that 00 buckshot had far more immediate stopping power.

Metal Piercing Discarding Sabot (MPDS). Much like a rifled slug used for hunting, this round uses a sabot-carried, 500-grain, heat-treated proprietary-alloy, heavy metal slug designed for metal penetration. The slug rides in a sabot and makes no direct contact with the bore. Leaving the muzzle-end at a velocity of around 1,700 ft/sec, the sabot is discarded as it is subjected to aerodynamic lift. The slug has a bottom heavy hourglass shape that helps stabilize its in-flight ballistic trajectory. This projectile will easily break an engine block or penetrate through both sides of a car and continue on. These 12-gauge rounds perform as advertised and should not be taken trivially.

.50-cal. BMG Shotgun. This 12-gauge round actually contains a .50 BMG / M17 Tracer round that is carried by two sabot sleeves to maintain straight alignment throughout its travel down the bore. The incendiary tracer lights when the round is fired and burns about 3 to 4 seconds, offering about a 400m tracer burnout. It is inherently inaccurate because the .50-caliber round is not spin- or fin-stabilized. For example, at 400m a typical elevation hold of about 30 feet above the target is necessary. This round has little practical value other than its “nasty” unfired look.

Bolo Round. Like a hand-thrown bolo that whirls during flight to entangle its target, this 12-gauge shotgun round is constructed by using a short length of flexible steel wire to connect two lead slugs together. Coiled into a shot cup to carry it down the bore, the miniature bolo is released as the shot cup strips away as it leaves the muzzle. The bolo round then swirls its way downrange to mash and entwine a live target at ranges of 30 to 40 yards. The effectiveness of this round against dog-size animals and/or large goose-size birds is marginal. The round sounds interesting, but it’s no substitute for a shot-carrying shell or a rifled slug that possesses unarguable effectiveness and reliability against a given target.

Dragon’s Breath (Incendiary Round). Dragon’s Breath is a unique type of 12-gauge incendiary round loaded with magnesium shards. When the round is fired, it resembles a huge torch of white-hot sparks and scorching flames that reaches out to about 100 feet. This searing hot flame only lasts a few seconds, but it will ignite anything flammable in its path—a human’s clothing—or cause serious burns otherwise. While prohibited on all civilian ranges except for specifically designated government ranges, it must only be used outdoors with extreme caution and target discretion.

Flashbang Round. These rounds don’t fire a projectile. Rather, they produce an intensely bright muzzle flash accompanied by an instantaneous 182dB report that will disorient anyone without ear protection. The gun must be pointed down and away from a human target to prevent severe injury. If fired in rapid volley from a semiauto-loading shotgun they can immobilize a hostile within close proximity. While it’s hard to say whether they’re actually effective in a tactical situation, these rounds do exactly what they’re advertised to do; they cause an obnoxiously loud bang.

Rubber Bullet Rounds. These rounds are often used by law enforcement for riot control. They are used much like regular shotgun ammo except they must never be aimed at a person’s face or chest. They’re loaded with nothing more than rubber 00 buckshot as replacement for lead or steel shot. They are still lethal at close range and can easily knock out an eye at 40 yards.

Beanbag Rounds. Used by law enforcement as a less-than-lethal solution, this round is many times loaded with small teabag-size cloth bags filled with bismuth powder. Bismuth is close to lead in mass (weight), but unlike lead it is non-toxic and eco-friendly. There are some beanbag rounds available that are loaded with lighter materials for specific less-than-lethal use at very close range. Stick with the heavy bags and aim for the legs and lower body.

What the Future Holds

Soldier-carried Directed Energy (Laser) Weapons are well within current technical grasp. Prototypes have been built and fielded for nearly 2 decades. Miniaturizing high-power-directed energy technology has not been the limiting factor for the adoption of such weapons for battlefield use. The limiting factors really only involve two issues: one technical and one political.

Lasers of sufficient power to damage material objects like vehicles and aircraft or burn holes in other soldiers consume large amounts of power. That requires a large portable power source that can be sustained. Reducing power-source size so it can easily be soldier-carried also reduces its capacity to recharge the laser(s) it powers. So power sustainability is a major showstopper when it comes to soldier-carried offensive laser systems.

A second show stopper are the Geneva Conventions and their follow-on addendums that dictate what can and can’t be used to kill one’s enemy. While it’s acceptable to shoot holes in one’s enemy, lasers are only acceptable when used for target designation but not to blind or burn holes into the enemy. As ridiculous as this might sound, it is a recognized measure in the Rules of War. This playbook will likely change as robotic warfighting systems (drones of all types) technically mature and are fielded against similar adversary systems, both terrestrially and celestially. They will surely rely upon some form of directed energy because killing robots with robots using directed energy isn’t covered by any Convention.

Achieving an army of robotic combatants is still a decade or more in the future, but it is coming. Until then, and perhaps well into the next several decades, kinetic weapons consisting of bullet firing guns will remain the cost-effective mainstay for warfare, law enforcement and sporting purposes. As a result, ammunition will continue to evolve and so will the weapons that fire it.

It’s just not right. Someone should do something to stop the bullying. The U.S. government fat-shaming ammunition has got to stop. The messages are loud and clear:

• S. Navy used to cube out ships, now they weigh out ships. Lighten the load fatso.
• 20%-30% lighter ammunition could increase a helicopter strike team by one soldier. One more could mean success or failure on a critical mission. Get lean!
• We need to lighten the load of the soldier, so he can carry other stuff like batteries and electronics!

Ammo is too fat, and it needs to go on a diet!

The ammunition diet fad—aka lightweight ammunition initiatives—has been a key focus for over 20 years within the U.S. government. The recent award of the 6.8 caliber Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program is down-selected to three players with lightweight ammo in mind. To spice things up the government is pushing 6.8 caliber to also add in a little “overmatch” against the 7.62×39 in engagement distance.

The new kid on the block is True Velocity, Inc., with a composite polymer hybrid cartridge. Its weapon partner is General Dynamics (GD). The oldest dog in the game is Textron, with its polymer-cased telescoped cartridge and Winchester as its ammunition load, assemble and pack partner. Textron has been working the Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) in 5.56 for nearly 2 decades and has been designing ammo for the government for over 50 years. SIG SAUER rounds out the group with a bi-metal cartridge design and will go the battle alone for ammo/weapon design and assembly. These awards are the culmination of decades of work and hundreds of millions of dollars of public/private development funding in ammunition to shave off those unwanted pounds.

Two of the three awardees have a polymer/plastic design. Will they win the competition? Is the future finally here to depart from the solid brass cartridge design as used since Sharps rifles of the 1860s? Can ammo get skinny and still meet the rugged demands of the government? Does the commercial consumer care about fat ammo? Will the 6.8 replace 5.56 as the high-volume caliber of the U.S. Army?

History

Plastic injection molding was invented in 1872. Plastic ammunition goes back to at least WWII; however, there is not a lot of easy-access information about all the experiments that the government did in this area. There were multiple patents in the early 1950s. One of the first commercial/government endeavors was the Dardick Tround. Dardick Corp. (1954–1962) created multiple calibers in a revolver-like device from .38 to 30mm that was rather short-lived. My father remembers testing rounds in the 1960’s time frame. They worked well; however, they never took off. Plastic shotshell ammunition has been around since the 1960s.

Technical Challenges

I will credit my father with an accurate prediction from the early 1990s when we consulted with some of the early polymer designs. In his opinion, when you are trying to make plastic act like brass, you are going to have problems. A redesign of the weapon chamber with significantly thicker neck walls would allow plastic to function with less technical issues. The three winners have held to this principle with both polymer designs not having a traditional neck and the SIG SAUER design sticking with a brass neck.

The initial technical challenge with most of the early plastic ammunition was the splitting of the case neck wall. Plastic is not as strong as brass or steel when only .008-inch thick. The latest generation of polymer materials has performed much `better; however, they still can be an issue. All three of the NGSWs seem to have a handle on this issue, with kudos to True Velocity for the design departure from having a neck at all, while still looking close to a traditional cartridge case.

The challenge of the last decade is how the ammunition handled the extreme temperature ranges of Department of Defense (DOD) testing. MAC, LLC, and its polymer body and brass head have been very successful in this area with the USMC. MAC has not been able to meet 100% of the U.S. Army’s requirements, therefore it has not been able to make the jump outside of the .50 caliber for adoption. I’m not 100% convinced that interagency politics are not a significant factor in MAC not being fully fielded. The future will tell how the three players fair in the temperature battle.

The government’s success record on these experimental programs in small/medium caliber is very good but not 100% successful. The Objective Individual Combat Weapon (OICW) from the early 2000s was not successful with over $772M in funding. The departure from traditional cartridge case manufacturing technology and equipment has been of questionable success on the Setpoint case cells at the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Setpoint is basically out of the business and appears to not be in consideration for any future equipment.  Insider scuttlebutt is that if the government had to do it over again it would not have chosen Setpoint. The 40mm day/night thermal impact/marking improvement program is pushing $500M in funding and was recently placed under a “stop-work” order due to increased occurrence of range fires. Range fire prevention was one of the key performance criteria, and chemiluminescence with ZERO potential of range fires lost out to pyrophoricity, which had a high probability of causing range fires and other round/weapon safety issues. Therefore, the probability of the NGSW beginning successfully is not a lock. All of the three efforts could fail, or the government could run out of funding (it happens) before a final solution.

Funding Challenges

The funding for these programs has been enormous; however, not enough to get the items into full fielding. The cost to get to a Total Readiness Level 9 is beyond expensive. The NGSW had nearly a dozen bidders to be down-selected to three. It is estimated that each of the original bidders spent at least $1M to $30M of their own money to get to the place where they could bid. This does not include prior U.S. government funding they might have received.

The weapons will also be a funding challenge for the government. Funding will limit the speed at which it can purchase the two different proposed weapons once selected. The cost of the accessories on the weapons will cost money. The cost of the ammo will be more expensive than 5.56, which it will replace. This will also limit the rate at which the government can field the weapons and ammo.

Per the Army’s Program Manager–Maneuver Ammunition Systems (PM-MAS), the NGSW ammunition will be built at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. This is going to require multiple pools of funding to make this happen. There will need to be facilities funding to build a new building complex, which I estimate at $200M–$500M depending on the size of the effort and falls outside of the PM-MAS funding pool. [Jay’s edit:] There will need to be new production equipment at Lake City to manufacture any of the current three possible winners. The U.S. government will need to scrap/decommission some to all of the existing equipment since they will not be used to manufacture these rounds.  This will cost an estimated $50M–$500M depending on the initial ramp-up time frame, type of equipment, number of lines, final design and long-term requirements. There will need to be testing equipment that might require some facility money to modify buildings, test weapon money and probably a few areas I am forgetting.

All of these areas need to be funded in conjunction with one another to have this program proceed at a reasonable pace. If you have the ammo manufacturing equipment funding without the weapon funding, the program will drag on without success. In short, we have a long way to go, even if all the designs passed all the gates.

Pro and Cons of Each Team

Each of the cartridge designs has its own niche. The tough questions are: What does the Army want for the ammo and the weapons? What is a key criterion right now that may be waived or reduced later? Is the Squad Automatic Weapon version more important than the carbine? Is weight more important than function? Here are this author’s opinions:

SIG SAUER—SIG is the least experimental and least deviated from traditional brass cases. SIG has the best chance of meeting all the cartridge functional criteria since there is no plastic. The cartridge should be easier to manufacture. It seems to offer the least weight savings. SIG has been on a roll with the win in the Army Pistol competition. It has decades of know-how to make outstanding weapons, and it seems to know what the customer wants and can get close enough to win a competition. SIG is large enough to support dumping a bunch more of its $228M in annual revenue into the program. It is the small guy on the block in terms of revenue. Is there enough defense revenue to support a win if needed?

True Velocity—It has the most experimental design, as this iteration of their ammo only came out just in time for the competition. The lack of a thin neck wall problem is averted with the new design; however, does it create other problems? How easy is it to manufacture repeatedly? Right now, the cartridge wins the “cool factor;” however will the momentum last through the competition? Their claimed 30%-plus weight savings, heat reduction and tighter standard deviation are advantages. True Velocity claims GD is not known for wildly creative weapon designs, and it doesn’t make the volume of weapons that SIG does. True Velocity is individually the low man on revenue, estimated under $20M. Its partnership with GD Ordnance & Tactical Systems brings True Velocity into the $2B-plus range (GD total revenue is $36B); therefore, depending on the relationship, the private funding might be there to support the program, if needed.

Textron—Its ammunition design is not experimental, but it has never hit full-rate production. We (MAST Technology) did a run of around 300,000 units in 2012, and to the best of my knowledge, there has not been another run of this size. How easy will the round be to manufacture for Winchester? One functional issue could be that the cases could be mistaken for the top or bottom of the round in the dark with gloves on. Can Textron fight off Murphy ’s Law to win? On the weapon side, Textron does not have the small-caliber weapon experience of SIG or GD. The revolver-like design seems sound; however, can it stand up to the other rigors of U.S. government testing? Textron does have an extensive background in the design and development of experimental ammunition for the U.S. government going back to the 1960s. Textron is $13B in revenue, so it can contribute significantly more than the other players, if needed.

Below is my ranking system. It does not correlate with the government evaluation criteria. Common sense may or may not be a factor in the final decision. I will not declare a winner, because it only matters what the government wants in the end and what sacrifices it is willing to accept or not accept. Mere mortals may not fully understand all the evaluation factors.

Future Predictions

If the 6.8 program succeeds, the 5.56 usage would be reduced. There would need to be another major decision to replace the 5.56 with the 6.8. Several years ago, the Army was saying it needed to reduce the number of round types to reduce the inventory, and then a couple years later it wanted to add “training-only,” small-caliber ammunition. They seem to change their minds quite a bit. In addition, when 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds became the calibers of choice in the late 1950s/early 1960s, .30-06 was still in production until the mid-1970s at Lake City. So, we will probably have 5.56 for a long time even if it all goes perfectly.

Weighing in on all the factors discussed above, my gut says that SIG SAUER is in the best position to win the NGSW; however, it depends on what the Army wants. A sexy new design that can pass the entire evaluation-criteria lower threshold could easily win, too. If the design just passes the threshold criteria, it might not matter that the SIG passes at a much higher level. Overall I give the Army program a 91% chance of success. My main rationale is there are too many cooks in the kitchen to bring the program to a quick finish and get the ammo skinny. I don’t believe consumers’ care. They want cheap ammo and will not pay for expensive plastic ammo.

On the other hand, I am surprised that 100% steel or stainless-steel solid cases were not in the mix. They have been around nearly as long as brass. There have been trillions of rounds of steel ammo built and successfully fired in the 100 million-plus AK-47s that have been built since 1946. The cartridge manufacturing equipment could be converted to run steel rather than re-inventing the wheel in the manufacturing process. The raw material is cheaper. I believe the negative connotation that steel gets is largely not supported by fact, rather opinion. The average American gun enthusiast or U.S. soldier does not want to admit that Uncle Joe Stalin does ammo and guns better than Uncle Sam. Such heresy would be un-American.

Product description for each caliber

Caliber:

Projectile style:

Projectile weight:

Velocity FPS:

Energy (Ft. Lbs.):

Accuracy:

How packaged:

Cartridge weight:

% weight savings:]

TRUE VELOCITY INC. [HAS 3 products]

True Velocity’s ammunition is over 30% lighter than conventional brass rounds. TV’s proprietary design innovations reduce overall weapons signature. Our lighter weight ammunition reduces transportation costs and increases operational advantages. Through the collaboration of science, technology and ballistic subject matter experts, True Velocity’s ammunition is specifically designed to meet the rigorous demands of the next generation weapon and modernization strategy.

tvammo.com

5.56x45mm NATO

True Velocity composite case 5.56x45mm Precision Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is more than 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methods allow the ammunition to meet velocity and function requirements in all USSOCOM-tested weapons. The projectile is an Opened Tipped Match bullet designed for consistency and accuracy. True Velocity Composite ammunition has been designed to function in harsh conditions and in all USSOCOM weapon systems.

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/OTM

Projectile weight: 77 grains

Velocity FPS: 838.2m/s (2,750 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 144 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

7.62x51mm NATO

True Velocity composite case 7.62×51 Precision Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methods allow the ammunition to meet pressure, velocity and function requirements in all USSOCOM-tested weapons. The projectile is a Sierra Match King, 168 grains. The unique design of the projectile assures superb accuracy, flat trajectory and high momentum delivery with low sensitivity to crosswinds at all ranges. True Velocity Composite ammunition has been designed to function in harsh conditions and in all USSOCOM weapon systems.

Caliber: 7.62×51 NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/ Hollow-Point Boat Tail

Projectile weight: 168 grains

Velocity FPS: 814.7/s (2,673 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 264 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

.50 BMG / 12.7x99mm NATO

True Velocity’s composite case .50 BMG / 12.7×99 NATO Ammunition is designed to incorporate many capabilities not found in other ammunition. The fully loaded composite case is 30% lighter than brass and acts as an insulator against heat fatigue in weapon chambers. Proprietary development and production methodologies allow the ammunition to meet velocity and function requirements in all current DoD weapons, as well as to function across a wide spectrum of harsh operating environments.

Caliber: .50 BMG / 12.7x99mm NATO

Projectile style: Lightweight Composite/ FMJ, M33 Ball

Projectile weight: 660 grains

Velocity FPS: 885.4 m/s (2,905 ft/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: MIL-SPEC

Cartridge weight: 1,259 grains

% weight savings: More than 30% lighter than brass

MAC, LLC

.50 Cal Polymer Cased Ammunition

The only polymer rounds qualified by the U.S. government, fielded and used in live operations. MAC .50 Cal Polymer Cased Ammunition

meets specifications for MIL-DTL-10190F for velocity, pressure, accuracy, bullet pull and function at ambient and temperature extremes. Compatible with all US-MIL caliber .50 machine guns and rifles with standard .50 BMG chambers.

info@macammo.com

Caliber: .50

Case: Hybrid polymer/metal design

Projectile style: Customer Choice

Projectile weight: Proprietary

Velocity FPS: 2,905 fps (885 m/s)

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Max Pressure: 65,000 psi

Accuracy: Single-digit Standard Deviation for velocity

How packaged: 100 rounds linked 4/1 tracer in M2A2 box, or per customer specifications

Cartridge weight: 96 grams (typical)

% weight savings: Up to 30%

NAMMO

5.56 PSRTA

Plastic Short Range Training Ammunition (PSRTA) is intended for use in training areas where range restrictions preclude the use of full-range standard service ammunition. Lead-free primers remove nearly all trace amounts of toxins reducing risk to users. Currently in use at Special Operations training facilities.

nammo.com

Caliber: 5.56×45

Projectile style: Polymer force on target (training)

Projectile weight: Proprietary

Velocity FPS: Generally matched to 855A1

Energy (Ft Lb): Proprietary

Accuracy: Similar to M855 at 20m

How packaged: 30 per box

Cartridge weight: 3.0g–3.3g (48 ± 3 g)

% weight savings: Proprietary

TEXTRON SYSTEMS [HAS 3 Products]

Textron Systems’ CT ammunition uses a novel ammunition design, in which the projectile is seated within a cylindrical case. The CT design allows for up to 37% weight savings, compared to equivalent-performing brass cartridges.

textronsystems.com

5.56mm CT

The 5.56mm CT reduces total system weight by 40% and maintains the same capabilities as the M249 conventional system.

Caliber: 5.56mm CT Cased Telescoped

Projectile style: M855

Projectile weight: 62 grains

Velocity FPS: 3,020

Energy (Ft Lb): 2,509

Accuracy: Proprietary

How packaged: Proprietary

Cartridge weight: 127 grains

% weight savings, cartridge: 33%

% Weight savings, cartridge and link: 39% (Reference cartridge & link M855/M27)

6.5mm CT Carbine

The 6.5mm CT Carbine system provides a 35% ammo weight savings with 30% increased lethality, compared to 7.62mm conventional systems.

[ADAM—THE 2 CHARTS BELOW HAVE EMBEDDED TABLES I CAN’T REMOVE.]

7.62mm CT MMG Cased Telescoped

With a total system reduction of 37%, the 7.62mm CT MMG matches the performance of the M240 conventional system.

The U.S. Army is on the hunt for a new small arms weapon system to replace its current rifles and light/medium machine guns. Currently they have contracted five companies to provide a prototype for the Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR). At least one company, Textron Systems, will be fielding a prototype machine gun that fires cased telescoped ammunition (CTA) (South, Todd, “The Army’s Next Machine Gun Could Fire Caseless Ammo—and One of These Companies Might Build It,” Army Times, July 12, 2018… If Textron with CTA is awarded the contract to produce the Army’s next light/medium machine gun, it would create a huge impact on the future of small arms by being one of the first big changes to ammunition since the invention of the current brass casings. Why is there a need for new bullet technologies? As of late, new fluid body armor technology has been developed that could make most battlefield rounds obsolete (Caughill, Patrick, “New Ultra Lightweight ‘Fluid Armor’ Can Stop a .44 Magnum Bullet,” Futurism, May 17, 2017, futurism.com/new-ultra-lightweight-fluid-armor-can-stop-a-44-magnum-bullet). Many of these new protective light armors could render most modern rounds ineffective if there is not a next-generation of ammo developed.

What Exactly is CTA?

CTA is another form of cartridge. The “telescoped” aspect means the bullet is partially/completely enveloped by the propellant charge. In the case of the ammunition being fielded by Textron, it has a “straight-wall polymer case with a centrally located primer in its base … The projectile is surrounded by propellant up to its cannelure. The case is open at the front with the projectile nose visible. A single groove runs around the circumference of the forward part of the case” (Fortier, David, “Telescoped Ammunition Might Be the Future of Cartridges,” Rifle Shooter Magazine. Aug. 29, 2018… CTA retains all the same parts of current ammunition but adds in polymer to modify its position. The idea behind this is to get a lighter cartridge that is a bigger and more powerful projectile with the same weight as a smaller brass counterpart.

Textron Systems claims that CTA has many advantages over conventional ammunition, including a significant reduction in weight. It claims to be able to field a medium machine gun, firing the CTA equivalent of 7.62 NATO with 600 rounds, at only 3 pounds heavier than the current M249 light machine gun firing 5.56 NATO with 600 rounds (Shipley, Paul A., Benjamin T. Cole (AAI Corporation, Textron Systems Unmanned Systems) and Kori Phillips (U.S. Army ARDEC, Joint Service Small Arms Program). Cased Telescoped Small Arms Systems. NDIA Joint Armaments Conference: Textron Systems, May 2014). It also claims that the new weapon with CTA has better reliability, is easier to maintain and has less felt recoil and improved accuracy. While all those are just claims, the U.S. Army will definitely put every single one to the test with thousands of rounds each. And if it turns out that Textron’s claims run true then CTA will change the face of small arms as we know it.

History of CTA

The idea for improvement and innovation over current ammunition has been around for a long time. From electrically/magnetically fired projectiles, to CTA, to caseless ammunition, enormous amounts of money, time and research have been spent on trying to figure out the next step in the evolution of ammunition. For a time, it seemed as though caseless telescoped ammunition would take the forefront for new innovation, and in 1977, the U.S. Air Force was even granted a patent to this caseless ammunition (Harold O. Evans, Caseless Ammunition Round with Spin Stabilized Metal Flechette and Disintegrating Sabot. U.S. Patent US4015527A, filed March 10, 1976, and issued Apr. 5, 1977).

Caseless ammunition is very similar to CTA, but instead of a polymer case, its case is made from solid propellant, making the case and propellant singular. But it seems that the challenges of producing caseless ammo were never completely overcome, and CTA has taken the lead as the next step in ammunition development. Since its inception in an Air Force laboratory in 1954, CTA did not look like it was fairing much better though, and in fact, CTA has been wrought with issues over the years. In 1995, a report from the Inspector General stated “$213 million [spent] over 41 years has not resulted in a viable weapon system” (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Office of the Inspector General. “DOD Cased Telescoped Ammunition and Gun Technology Program,” by Robert J. Liberman. Report No. 96-164. June 14, 1996). But the report countered the lack of progress by saying the research being conducted was important, and if several major issues could be resolved, then CTA could provide a new lethal advantage to the battlefield. It seems only in the past 2 decades since this report, have polymers become advanced enough to make CTA actually viable. But that does not mean that there are no issues that need to be resolved.

Differences in How Weapons Firing CTA Function

CTA, because of its differences, requires a new operating procedure with the bolt and receiver from current weapons. Two of the current machine guns the Army seeks to replace, the M249 SAW and the M240B/L, operate like all other guns have for the past century (FN. “FN® M249 SAW.” FN® America. fnamerica.com/products/machine-guns/fn-m249-saw). The chamber and barrel are forged from one piece, the cartridge is pushed into the fixed chamber, fired and then the casing is extracted so the process can repeat and continue.

CTA is different in that “normal” extraction does not work with polymer casings. To get around this, a “swinging chamber” has been developed. How this works is a round is placed into the chamber in the open position. Then the chamber swings in line with the barrel for firing. After the round is fired the chamber rotates back into the load position. A new round is forced into the rear of the chamber, pushing the spent casing and any other debris out of the front of the chamber (McGregor, Captain I.A., “Telescoped Ammunition a Future—Lightweight Compact Ammunition?” The Canadian Army Journal, 12.2, No. Summer 2009, 75-81. publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/forces/D12-11-12-2-eng.pdf). This also helps keep the heat of the chamber low, so the polymer cases are not as likely to melt, which has presented issues in the past. The new firing system also allows for CTA rounds to be perfect cylinders, which simplifies manufacturing. Another difference is that cartridges are also linked together by a polymer chain instead of the traditional metal links that held belts of bullets together.

Design Considerations and Challenges

A big challenge in designing CTA is making a polymer casing that can withstand the high temperatures and contained explosion, in the firing of a round. A study done by the Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center put different polymers to the test and based on their criteria showed how different polymers failed and why they did so (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center. “Alternative Case Material and Design,” by Jerry S. Chung, Frontier Performance Polymers Corporation and Lucian M. Sadowski, Project Engineer, ARDEC. Technical Report ARAEW-TR-05007. July 2003 to Oct. 2004). The lessons learned from this study have led to the polymer casings that Textron is fielding in their prototype.

Another issue arises in that CTA “not only reduces the volume available for the propellant charge but also places severe geometric constraints on both the distribution of the propellant and the location and functionality of the ignition system” (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Army Research Laboratory. “Progress in Modeling Ignition in a Solid Propellant Charge for Telescoped Ammunition,” by Michael J. Nusca and Albert W. Horst/Weapons and Materials Research Directorate, ARL. Vol. ARL-TR-3673. Nov. 2005). This problem was addressed in a study by the Army Research Laboratory, in which they tested different solid propellants to find one that could produce more power with less volume while also being very consistent. They were unable to find a perfect match, but the results showed exactly what the perfect propellant would need to look like.

An article in Defense Technology Journal also pointed out that because the chamber is rotating and not fixed, every time it locks back into firing position, it will be aligned slightly differently. This results in more wear in the throat of the barrel and also reduced accuracy. The results from this experiment give an acceptable allowed error in how precise the chamber needs to lock every time to expect a certain accuracy (Corriveau, D., and C. Florin Petre, “Influence of Chamber Misalignment on Cased Telescoped (CT) Ammunition Accuracy,” Defence Technology, 12, No. 2 (Apr. 2016): 117-23. doi:10.1016/j.dt.2015.11.008). Companies can use this data to make sure they are precise enough in how much the chamber is allowed to slip-in-error between rounds.

                In the Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, a different article showed how the barrel of a weapon reacted differently to CTA rounds being fired. The experiment illustrated the different kinds of shock caused by CTA relative to standard ammunition, showing how the barrel vibrations differ. From these findings, companies can see how the barrels are stressed and better choose the correct material and design of a barrel to properly handle CTA (Gimm, Hak In, Ki Up Cha and Chang Ki Cho, “Characterizations of Gun Barrel Vibrations of during [sic] Firing Based on Shock Response Analysis and Short-time Fourier Transform,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 26, No. 5 (May 2012): 1463-470. doi:10.1007/s12206-012-0335-5).

The rotating chamber of CTA also lets what would be propelling gasses escape, much like a revolver and the gasses that escape between the cylinder and the barrel. In a test performed by Mechanical Solutions, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Defense, different materials were tested to see how well they could make a seal between the chamber and the barrel (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. Mechanical Solutions, Inc./U.S. Army TACOM-ARDEC. “Cased Telescoped Ammunition Smart Seal Development,” by William J. Kelly and William D. Marscher. Vol. TR-81801. Sep. 5, 2002). Mechanical Solutions looked at the different properties and what has been used to create a seal in similar environments before. Another similar test was conducted by the Nanjing University of Science and Technology in China. Their findings showed a “sealing structure [that] has a good sealing performance and can solve the spherical transient high-pressure gas seal problem for the rotating chamber of the medium calibre CTA gun, and it is expected to offer a reference value to solve related problems in engineering” (Chen, Longmiao, Qiang Fu and Gui Lin, “Study on the Sealing Properties of the Sealing Structure for the Rotating Chamber of a Certain Cased Telescoped Ammunition Gun,” Computer Modelling & New Technologies, 18, No. 3 (March 1, 2014): 93-97.). These tests helped find the right seal to attain the least amount of propellant gas lost, thus making CTA more efficient to produce higher bullet velocities.

Why Is so Much Effort Being Put into CTA Anyway?

A question that should be considered: Is there really anything wrong with current ammunition and firearms? They are clearly proven and tested to be reliable and accurate for the last century; otherwise, a new ammo and/or firearm would have been already developed. Per Arvidsson from Small Arms Defense Journal argues that there really is no need to run away from the current ammunition, especially the 5.56. He claims that if countries want more lethal small arms, that better training is needed for security forces, not new weapons or ammo (Arvidsson, Per, “Is There a Problem with the Lethality of the 5.56 NATO Caliber?” Vol. 3, No. 1, Small Arms Defense Journal, Jan. 6, 2012.). This would certainly seem to be more cost efficient as 5.56 is streamlined across all of NATO already. Moving to CTA would mean huge upfront costs in terms of buying new weapons and converting ammunition factories to produce it (“The Case for Caseless Telescoped Ammunition,” Military News. YouTube. Nov. 25, 2017.). Yet, it seems the U.S. Army still wants more bang for less weight and is set on getting a bigger round than the little 5.56 (Keller, Jared, “The Army Is One Step Closer to a 6.8mm Next-Generation Rifle,” Task & Purpose, Oct. 8, 2018.). Such a decision for CTA usage would likely compel NATO countries to adapt as well.

Regardless, it really is all about the weight/power ratio. In the article, “The Soldier’s Heavy Load,” the author describes how dismounted soldiers’ mobility and effectiveness correlates to the amount of weight they have to carry (Fish, Lauren, and Paul Scharre, “The Soldier’s Heavy Load,” Center for a New American Security. Sep. 26, 2018.). Soldiers are physically limited on how much they can carry and at times have to sacrifice protection for mobility, or mobility for firepower, etc. Unfortunately, technology often increases weights, instead of decreases loads carried. Weapon to weapon, CTA can decrease the weight carried both in the firearm itself and the ammunition, proving advantageous because every pound counts when it is being put on a soldier (Tobias Lindner, Christoph Schulze, Sandra Woitge, Susanne Finze, Wolfram Mittelmeier and Rainer Bader, “The Effect of the Weight of Equipment on Muscle Activity of the Lower Extremity in Soldiers,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 976513, 8 pages, 2012. doi.org/10.1100/2012/976513). And if for the same weight a soldier can carry more firepower, it also seems to be advantageous. This seems to be the reason why CTA is being considered so heavily.

But CTA is not the only way to reduce weight. A report filed by Major Steven Miskinis for the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College shows that an aluminum casing would weigh less than the polymer of a CTA counterpart, and aluminum is less flammable. His findings also show that aluminum would cost less, while CTA would be the same cost as current brass cased ammunition; although he does admit that CTA has a substantial advantage in corrosion resistance (U.S. Department of Defense/Defense Technical Information Center. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. “Should the U.S. Army Adopt New 5.56mm Ammunition Cartridge Designs to Reduce Overall Ammunition Weight?” by Major Steven G. Miskinis, Jr. Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 2011. apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a547525.pdf). So why not just replace brass with aluminum? It seems that with aluminum being a cartridge case, it has a vital flaw of a “burn-through phenomenon” where the casing fails and, in the process, completely disables the weapon (U.S. Department of Defense/ Defense Technical Information Center. Frankford Arsenal. “An Analysis of 5,56mm Aluminum Cartridge Case Burn-Through Phenomenon,” by Walther H. Squire and Reed E. Donnard, Jan. 1972. AD0750379). If this can be fixed it may be a better alternative, but so far the emphasis on CTA would hint at this not being an easily fixable flaw.

Bottom Line

CTA has not been perfected. While being first envisioned in 1954, CTA has seen great advancements in the last decade. Testing for CTA must continue finding faults, while providing cost-effective solutions. If CTA can live up to the claims given to it by Textron and others, it seems that the future of small arms lies within it. If not, it is just one more idea scrapped either for good or until technology can advance to the point to make it viable. Regardless of its failure or success, the continuous process for something that weighs less, hits harder and is cheaper to manufacture will continue. But for now, all one can do is sit back and watch where CTA goes, especially with an enormous U.S. Army contract on the line and with adversaries developing new armor technologies to protect against current NATO rounds.

Nathan Fairhurst is a Research Assistant in the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, U.S. Air Force Academy. Dr. Jahara Matisek (Major, U.S. Air Force) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, and a U.S. Air Force Academy Non-Resident Fellow, Modern War Institute, West Point, U.S. Military Academy.