-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
What about FN .264 LICC?
- Thread starter SixFive-O
- Start date
Ah thanks! I see that now. Found some photos of SSD with it pulled back seem to show it a bit better.
Also, does it look like a 3 piece receiver system to you all as well? Tan lower, blue-ish rear-center, and then dark grey upper-rail? Seems complex.
Canada will sell the U.S. all the Tungsten it will ever need. A non-issue. We have more then China and Russia combined. Same with Uranium.
A .22 Nosler AP load will do fine. Supersonic out to 1100 yards. Change mags in the M4 and M27 and MK18. Good for another 30 years.
I’d be surprised if it was significantly different than the internals on the XCR. Its also a 3lug bolt, long stroke piston system.
Figured I’d add some pictures:
Specialist will likely be the ones who end up with it, just like every other new weapon they have tested they will not be issued to all troops.I get that.
You are saying Americans would lug around that heavy assed shit in North Central Congo or in Vietnam or Central America. 50 Celcius with 80% humidity? Doubt it.
Not a effing chance.
Muh body armor.
6.8 NG is a goddamn specialist weapon system and or cash grab for the acquisition beaurocrats. As usual.
If this ends up a reality, (AR12.5 or whatever, medium frame) I would hope to see new cartridges holding the OAL around 2.500 with a max mag length of 2.600. It would be nice to get something right from the start, lol.
I just don’t want them to do old trick where they just up size a rifle design until they get the magwell dimensions they like. I know it’s not exactly how we got the current DPMS G1 but it feels like how we got the DPMS G1.
Good for people with little hands.
Manual of arms is way fast on AR15 then AR10.
Happy medium is great.
Teflon coated casings would be great too.
Real slick. (The weakness on a hot and dirty M4 bolt release is enough momentum to strip off new rounds when she aint oiled up enough).
Brass is sticky and annoying.
I love that the bolt head is very Tikka like. 3 lug.
Great for minus 52. Great for plus 60.
They said they want a cartridge that defeats LIV armor at 600yds, the 264LICC can't do that.
The more you choke down a cartridge >fat cartridge to small dia bullet the slower burn rate powder has to be used. The slower the powder the longer the barrel needs to be to burn that powder. That is why it takes longer barrels to get the Grendel up to speed. A 30 cal bullet in that 264LICC case will be almost as fast as a 308 because it can use faster burning powders in the short barrels the mil likes to use now. They need to figure out how to make a sabot accurate.
Well. Tough to do. No free lunch with physics.
You hold off the lvl 4 NVA swarm to 300 meters.
Even 50 bmg and .338 sucks on plates past 400-500 meters.
Just gotta aim for the pelvis with HPBTs and call in Napalm or Daisy Cutter drones on all the wounded.
It's all you can really do.
If no drones available....just let them bleed out I guess.
Yeah you could have .375 Enablr tungsten loads to A.P. out to like 600-800....but that's a waste of money and Canadians Tungsten.
Nobody knows what the .264 LICC can or can't do relative to Level IV body armor at various ranges. You'd have to have a program to develop specific projectiles and loads.
The 6.8 NGSW cartridge is said to get 3,000 fps from a 16" barrel at 80k psi with a 135gr bullet with a .488 G1 BC. Bullet would have a sectional density of .251.
In .264" (6.5mm) a 123gr bullet has a .252 sectional density. I think that's slightly heavy for the .264 LICC case so I'd propose a 115gr with a .236 SD and a .610 G1 BC at 62k psi doing 2,850 fps from a 16".
So, yes, all things being equal a bullet going slower with less sectional density is going to penetrate less. However, a higher BC helps gain back velocity at range.
Using the JBM Ballistics calculator, I calculated the trajectories of the two cartridges and the results are attached. (Note that numbers are educated guesses, so take the results with a grain of salt. We don't know what SIG's ammunition will achieve in the real world vs. their claims, and we don't know what the .264 LICC could achieve in the real world vs. my hypothetical load.)
The 6.8 NGSW cartridge is said to get 3,000 fps from a 16" barrel at 80k psi with a 135gr bullet with a .488 G1 BC. Bullet would have a sectional density of .251.
In .264" (6.5mm) a 123gr bullet has a .252 sectional density. I think that's slightly heavy for the .264 LICC case so I'd propose a 115gr with a .236 SD and a .610 G1 BC at 62k psi doing 2,850 fps from a 16".
So, yes, all things being equal a bullet going slower with less sectional density is going to penetrate less. However, a higher BC helps gain back velocity at range.
Using the JBM Ballistics calculator, I calculated the trajectories of the two cartridges and the results are attached. (Note that numbers are educated guesses, so take the results with a grain of salt. We don't know what SIG's ammunition will achieve in the real world vs. their claims, and we don't know what the .264 LICC could achieve in the real world vs. my hypothetical load.)
Attachments
The military has already tested all caliber AP type bullets at all velocities, that is how they came up with the requirement of a 130gr 6.8 at 3000fps at the muzzle. They could have used a 308 or 7mm but the 6.8 was lighter with a higher BC. They felt anything lighter than a 130 would not hold the energy needed at 600yds.
The 264LICC did not meet the criteria so the military didn't even consider it in the testing of NGSW rifles between the Sig and the General Dynamics polymer based cartridge.
This article explains some of it-https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...weapon-to-get-to-its-first-unit-by-next-year/
ETA- Some of the info came from other countries also trying to come up with the next best military cartridge. There has been some testing going on in the UK, Austria and Germany for years
The 264LICC did not meet the criteria so the military didn't even consider it in the testing of NGSW rifles between the Sig and the General Dynamics polymer based cartridge.
This article explains some of it-https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...weapon-to-get-to-its-first-unit-by-next-year/
ETA- Some of the info came from other countries also trying to come up with the next best military cartridge. There has been some testing going on in the UK, Austria and Germany for years
Last edited:
The military can write their requirements as they see fit and then one needs to design a cartridge to meet the requirements. All ballistics are trade-offs. Nothing in the article says the .264 LICC was tested or did not meet the critieria or that "anything lighter than a 130" wouldn't work. We all know an AP 123gr 6.5CM would do just as well or better, for example. Higher muzzle velocity at the same BC or higher BC at the same muzzle velocity — take your pick — wins every time.
Anyway, I'd err on the side of more rounds carried for a given basic load weight and with a lighter and more compact weapon. You gotta end the expansion in requirements at some point and accept some limitations balanced against other considerations.
If you REALLY need L4 body armor penetration at 600 yds, put that cartridge in machine guns and/or sniper rifles and continue to develop a more compact cartridge for assault rifles. Again, the weight and bulk of 6.8 NGSW makes it a non-starter for assault rifles. Not impressed with whoever is making these decisions. Gen. Mark Milley? Well, let's just leave it at that....
Anyway, I'd err on the side of more rounds carried for a given basic load weight and with a lighter and more compact weapon. You gotta end the expansion in requirements at some point and accept some limitations balanced against other considerations.
If you REALLY need L4 body armor penetration at 600 yds, put that cartridge in machine guns and/or sniper rifles and continue to develop a more compact cartridge for assault rifles. Again, the weight and bulk of 6.8 NGSW makes it a non-starter for assault rifles. Not impressed with whoever is making these decisions. Gen. Mark Milley? Well, let's just leave it at that....
All FN had to do was prove it was a better choice.
The fact that FN quickly changed the diameter of the case to the same size as a 308 should say a lot.
As for the 6.8x51-
"
More than 1,000 soldiers provided hands-on feedback over a 27-month weapon testing and selection process. More than 100 Marines and SOF troops also participated in evaluations and feedback, Madore said.
Those initial items will help the Army and Sig Sauer tweak the manufacturing process before upscaling the operations to produce thousands of rifles each year. The contract is technically for an indefinite number of rifles. Burris said that the annual rifle production numbers will be determined by Army priorities and budget considerations.
He could not provide an exact timeline of when all of the Army’s 120,000 close combat forces would receive the weapons systems.
Sig Sauer will receive millions of 6.8 mm projectiles, designed and manufactured by the U.S. government already, to begin the process of pairing the powder, primer and brass cartridge casing to build the 6.8 mm round, Boruff said.
As the Epping, New Hampshire-based company builds an ammo manufacturing line, the Army is funding work at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant near Independence, Missouri, the key producer of most small arms ammunition production.
The Lake City plant is adding an entire line and building, which are expected to be completed by fiscal 2025, solely for the manufacture of 6.8 mm ammunition."
The fact that FN quickly changed the diameter of the case to the same size as a 308 should say a lot.
As for the 6.8x51-
"
More than 1,000 soldiers provided hands-on feedback over a 27-month weapon testing and selection process. More than 100 Marines and SOF troops also participated in evaluations and feedback, Madore said.
Those initial items will help the Army and Sig Sauer tweak the manufacturing process before upscaling the operations to produce thousands of rifles each year. The contract is technically for an indefinite number of rifles. Burris said that the annual rifle production numbers will be determined by Army priorities and budget considerations.
He could not provide an exact timeline of when all of the Army’s 120,000 close combat forces would receive the weapons systems.
Sig Sauer will receive millions of 6.8 mm projectiles, designed and manufactured by the U.S. government already, to begin the process of pairing the powder, primer and brass cartridge casing to build the 6.8 mm round, Boruff said.
As the Epping, New Hampshire-based company builds an ammo manufacturing line, the Army is funding work at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant near Independence, Missouri, the key producer of most small arms ammunition production.
The Lake City plant is adding an entire line and building, which are expected to be completed by fiscal 2025, solely for the manufacture of 6.8 mm ammunition."
Last edited:
Little Becky Israeli tight L.A. ass ain't going to be able to handle goddamn 6.8 with the magical goofy rangefinder atop. Maybe from a firebase or guard tower. Not in general.
My knees hurt just thinking about it.
May as well use 62gr M855A1 grain in a SAW in .22 Nosler.
Regular Army can barely handle a 6lb M4 properly.
My knees hurt just thinking about it.
May as well use 62gr M855A1 grain in a SAW in .22 Nosler.
Regular Army can barely handle a 6lb M4 properly.
It doesn't matter if it's a 130gr 6mm, 6.5, 6.8, 7mm or 30 cal if a 130gr at 3000fps they will all produce the same amount of recoil.
It is easier to get a 130gr 30 cal up to 3000fps than it is to get a 130gr 6.5mm up to 3000fps out of the short barrels the military wants to use.
If any of you have quickload, workup loads in each caliber using standard 308 case capacity at 80,000psi and use 130gr bullets in each loaded to the same OAL cartridge length and output velocity from a 16" barrel.
BTW There is another forum where many industry professionals from several countries discuss all military type firearms and ammo. I know it has been going on for 15 years. Not 1 cartridge all of them have talked about has ever been adopted or used. Some have been tested for short periods but that is all. Some of the members have been involved in the testing.
IMO Hornady chose the wrong 6mm case. I'll take a 6mm 95gr SMK doing 2800 out of a 16" barrel at normal 58,000psi. It has 50% more E at 100yards and double the E at 300+ than a 62gr 5.56.
It is easier to get a 130gr 30 cal up to 3000fps than it is to get a 130gr 6.5mm up to 3000fps out of the short barrels the military wants to use.
If any of you have quickload, workup loads in each caliber using standard 308 case capacity at 80,000psi and use 130gr bullets in each loaded to the same OAL cartridge length and output velocity from a 16" barrel.
BTW There is another forum where many industry professionals from several countries discuss all military type firearms and ammo. I know it has been going on for 15 years. Not 1 cartridge all of them have talked about has ever been adopted or used. Some have been tested for short periods but that is all. Some of the members have been involved in the testing.
IMO Hornady chose the wrong 6mm case. I'll take a 6mm 95gr SMK doing 2800 out of a 16" barrel at normal 58,000psi. It has 50% more E at 100yards and double the E at 300+ than a 62gr 5.56.
Last edited:
Army requirements require a cartridge designed to certain parameters to meet those requirements. Not rocket science — for the most part.
You can rule out certain competitors — and it's been done many times in the past by a corrupt procurement bureaucracy — by writing requirements so specific that you're left with only the option favored by the procurement bureaucrats.
If Army says only the 6.8 NGSW meets their requirements, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with Army decisions that have already been made.
I might think their "requirements" are moronic cuz it is an iron-clad, unbreakable rule of combat that you want to carry as many rounds as possible — and not every one of those rounds needs to penetrate L4 at 600. Good luck to 'em and I guarantee we'll see a brand new, smaller cartridge in the future.
You can rule out certain competitors — and it's been done many times in the past by a corrupt procurement bureaucracy — by writing requirements so specific that you're left with only the option favored by the procurement bureaucrats.
If Army says only the 6.8 NGSW meets their requirements, I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with Army decisions that have already been made.
I might think their "requirements" are moronic cuz it is an iron-clad, unbreakable rule of combat that you want to carry as many rounds as possible — and not every one of those rounds needs to penetrate L4 at 600. Good luck to 'em and I guarantee we'll see a brand new, smaller cartridge in the future.
95smk would be amazing but it will burn out the barrel too fast. Bearing surface.
Think about 40 mag meltdowns.
Exactly. Time warp back to Korea in 1952.
Do you want to carry 440 round packs of ammo up a hill all day long or 1000 round packs that weigh half and have double the ammo.
How many M4 mags fit in a backpack?
How many M5/M7 mags fit in a backpack?
What is the weight?
Does the enemy have vests? Does it matter when spraying them from 1200 meters away?
Pretend you are a mule that is trying to win.
Water is more important then ammo some days.
Maybe. Depends on velocity. Bearing surface.
30 mags back to back FA seems to be the standard. Is that standard shit? Maybe.
Are barrels better in 2023 then 1959?
Yes.
Can anybody here do better then the 20th century Germans in 2023?
Probably not. Not without producing 80 Dollar tungsten bullets. Tool steel is your best friend.
I get why the U.S. Army would go to Tool Steel.
Can you mangle extra thick lvl 4 at 600m with Tool steel?
Probably at 1800 RPM. Sure.
Can Sniper sub Moa .338 Square jaw chad chill brah still hit a wavy mountain with 50,000 moving ants on it when his bull barrel is over heating with his 3 moa 0.3 Match ammo.
Just go for fire superiority at that point WW1 and WW2 style.
Your hand will get tired after sniping for so long and you'll pray for a water cooled maxim.
.223 Rem and .308.
Last edited:
The bearing surface of a 6mm 95gr SMK is shorter than a 123gr 6.5mm. .515" VS .564"
I've been a wildcatter since 1982 so I have tried many of these case sizes and calibers at different times and at normal 58-60,000psi. The cases have a case capacity of apx 42-45gr of H2O depending on the brand of case.
The 6.5LICC has apx the same case capacity as the 6GT or my 270AR, both were 6.5x47 shortened .125" At normal pressures out of a 20" barrel a 6.5Gt/LICC would push a 123gr bullet to apx 2875 out of a 20" barrel using Varget, that is apx 100fps slower than the 6.5x47.
The .277 version shot a 120gr at 2977 out of a 20" barrel using H335.
A 6BRX shooting 95gr SMKs hit 3100 with most powders from a 20" barrel, 105s hit 3000 with most powders but that is almost 20gr lighter than the 123gr 6.5 or 120gr .277.
Everytime we go down in bore size we lose efficiency because we must use slower burning powder, using a slower burning powder in a short barrel loses twice because a slower burning powder needs a longer barrel to burn.
I have a TAC 30, it's a 30 Herrett in an AR, it will shoot 130gr MK319 bullets at 2600 out of a 16" barrel with 30gr of 1680., The 110 gr bullets hit 2900fps. That is in a normal AR15. You want to talk about a 300yd and under hammer.
I've been a wildcatter since 1982 so I have tried many of these case sizes and calibers at different times and at normal 58-60,000psi. The cases have a case capacity of apx 42-45gr of H2O depending on the brand of case.
The 6.5LICC has apx the same case capacity as the 6GT or my 270AR, both were 6.5x47 shortened .125" At normal pressures out of a 20" barrel a 6.5Gt/LICC would push a 123gr bullet to apx 2875 out of a 20" barrel using Varget, that is apx 100fps slower than the 6.5x47.
The .277 version shot a 120gr at 2977 out of a 20" barrel using H335.
A 6BRX shooting 95gr SMKs hit 3100 with most powders from a 20" barrel, 105s hit 3000 with most powders but that is almost 20gr lighter than the 123gr 6.5 or 120gr .277.
Everytime we go down in bore size we lose efficiency because we must use slower burning powder, using a slower burning powder in a short barrel loses twice because a slower burning powder needs a longer barrel to burn.
I have a TAC 30, it's a 30 Herrett in an AR, it will shoot 130gr MK319 bullets at 2600 out of a 16" barrel with 30gr of 1680., The 110 gr bullets hit 2900fps. That is in a normal AR15. You want to talk about a 300yd and under hammer.
I have a couple of questions:
1) Could you tell me which forum? I’d like to read, this all sounds really interesting.
2) What where some of the issues preventing adoption from these other options they were all testing?
3) When you say Hornady chose the wrong 6mm case, I’m guessing you mean the 6ARC? Which case should they chosen instead that would give them the external ballistics? Also would this need an AR-12 rifle in conjuction or just a blown out mag well like SIX8?
How are you going to get that high of a bc (.610) out of a 115 grain .264.
That sounds unrealistic. Highbclowgr is that you?
I have nothing to do with this.
Wait...
You could just put air or aluminum or polymer in it.
The 115 is dayum temptin. Dey....temptin.
The Serbs are going full 6.5 Grendal...
Probably just want to Encircle Sarajevo again have have more range from the surrounding hills. Makes sense.
They are pretty good in certain ways....the Serbs...
I mean. Not saying they are the poster child for anything but...
Probably just want to Encircle Sarajevo again have have more range from the surrounding hills. Makes sense.
They are pretty good in certain ways....the Serbs...
I mean. Not saying they are the poster child for anything but...
Re: Hornady and issues- yes the .441/Grendel case does not work well in the AR15, the AMU tried it early on and found the bolts to be weak and the mags did not feed well. 6.5 Grendel mags are really just 6.8 mags with different followers. The military looked at it again after Alexander Arms showed it off at Blackwater. They looked at the 6mm ARC and had troops testing it just a few years ago but it hasn't gone anywhere. Geissele has made new mags in the last few months to try to fix the issue that the troops had when testing the 6mm ARC. If anyone had admitted there was problems in 2004 they could have fixed it by now the same way LWRC did with the 6.8, they made a magwel slightly wider so magpul could make 6.8 specific pmags. I machined stronger bolts that helped the bolt strength and the Monster/SIXFIVE bolts are a copy of the bolts I started Machining in 2009.
We can't shoot 105 ELDs out of a (TAC6) 6.8 case but we can shoot 95SMKs at 2800 out of 16" barrels at normal 58-60000psi. We build them based on AR15 LWRC SIX8 receivers using magpul SIX8 mags. I don't believe every person can shoot 600yds but the DM should have a rifle that will reach out if it's a 308, 6mm, 6.5x47 or what ever.
As for the forum it is an invite or sponsor thing only and I'm not a sponsoring member.
But not in an AR, that makes a huge difference.
This is how you do it if you want to see a Grendel or 6mm ARC in a military rifle. First off call Magpul and get them to design a mag specifically for those cartridges. Design an AR lower around those mags and machine new lowers but the uppers will need to be wider also. Copy my Titan bolt or design one stronger and put it all together. Or get Sig to make a MCX Spear LT in whatever flavor and talk the military into testing it.
Last edited:
I estimate a .610 BC from a 6.5mm 115gr by punching in numbers in the free online bullet drag calculator from Geoffrey Kolbe.
I'm including a screen shot of my hypothetical bullet. You can check my work.
The bullets shown by FN at SHOT Show 2023 are not bad in the ogive department, as it is. Here's the photo again from post #1.
Attachments
Last edited:
Better send that to Berger and show them how to make bullets, as it is their 130 is the only one close to that.
What happens when you change the density to match that of a steel core? ThenTungsten will be near twice as heavy as a copper jacket/lead core. How will that effect the overall weight and form factor?
I am 100% with Steve Holland on the fact that b.c. is not the end all be all.
6.8 SPC is superior to 6.5 Grendal (in an M4) 100%
This was something I didn’t really understand with the MCX - if the intent was multi-caliber with 762x39 on the table why did they go with an AR15 style bolt over something like what you made? They were already making a proprietary barrel extension, gas piston, and BCG. Why keep the AR-15 bolt especially knowing it’s limitations.
The 3-lug bolt is one of the things that interests me about FN's weapon.
Plugged in 55 Grain .350 b.c. Tungsten Spitzer .20 Nosler into my calc.
Impressive. Can break dance with that on full auto and smash plates out to 200m.
Ceramics can help create wound channels too.
Not designed for M43 ball.
All I have seen is fail with those two combos.
Fail to eject. Fail to feed. Fail.
AK47 had a LARGE and well angled extractor to deal with chonky buoy M43.
Think LAPD pulling a guy out of a car. One is 6 foot 7 300lbs with huge mitts.
Other is a 140lb female with little hands and cute nails.
Who is better at ripping that guy around the pavement?
I wasn’t so much talking about the extractor but the smaller amount of material supporting the locking lugs.
Last edited:
I liked the 3-lug on the XCR-L I had. I just wasn’t a fan of how front heavy the balance was with the full length handguard. Which ultimate lead to selling to a coworker. A minor annoyance was all the screw points: barrel mount bolt, extractor screws, stock position fastening screw.
Edit: at least FN, like Sig makes an effort to sell many of their designs on the commercial market.
