Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: .264 USA (spin-off from FBI Selection Process thread)

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI

    .264 USA (spin-off from FBI Selection Process thread)

    To keep from further deviating the other thread in the other sub-forum, I figured it was best to just start a new thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by DocGKR View Post
    Yes--it tests very well. Of course that means Big Army probably will ignore it...
    I'm all for not fixing something that's not broken, but it strikes me that if you have a cartridge that performs well terminally that could replace both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 and it comes at little cost of recoil and capacity over 5.56, then why wouldn't they go with that? I mean, I get it, that's quite a bit for initial costs of new hardware and all that, but it would serve Big Army far better than the XM17 trials, would simplify logistics, and give our troops a more effective standard rifle. Sure it's not a NATO caliber...yet...but if it cuts the mustard I don't see how you couldn't make it a new NATO standard.

    On top of that, a 6.5mm bullet from a cartridge that sounds like is performing about on par with 6.5 Grendel or better could also be shoe-horned into a role of bolt-action hunting rifle. Bolt-action, general purpose carbine, and also probably SPR and DMR. That's 4 different roles filled by one caliber. Am I way off base here or does this make sense to others as well?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by spinmove_ View Post
    To keep from further deviating the other thread in the other sub-forum, I figured it was best to just start a new thread.



    I'm all for not fixing something that's not broken, but it strikes me that if you have a cartridge that performs well terminally that could replace both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 and it comes at little cost of recoil and capacity over 5.56, then why wouldn't they go with that? I mean, I get it, that's quite a bit for initial costs of new hardware and all that, but it would serve Big Army far better than the XM17 trials, would simplify logistics, and give our troops a more effective standard rifle. Sure it's not a NATO caliber...yet...but if it cuts the mustard I don't see how you couldn't make it a new NATO standard.

    On top of that, a 6.5mm bullet from a cartridge that sounds like is performing about on par with 6.5 Grendel or better could also be shoe-horned into a role of bolt-action hunting rifle. Bolt-action, general purpose carbine, and also probably SPR and DMR. That's 4 different roles filled by one caliber. Am I way off base here or does this make sense to others as well?
    Not just that, but it could conceivably replace LMG and MMG with one gun.

  3. #3
    Makes complete sense, doubt they will change anytime soon

  4. #4
    Member BES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    North Georgia
    Don't go call Mark Larue and start asking for one of these because I'll probably be hung on the streets. Several SMU sniper sections and dialed in Mil/ Fed shooters are already using the .260 wildcat rounds extensively (like .264). Due to the demand from them, Larue has been cranking out .260 (ish) chambered OBRs with 18inch barrels for sometime now.

    One of the major problems with the .264 is cycling issues. For some reason Larue and a few other companies who work with SOCOM haven't been able to get them to run reliably in anything shorter than an 18in barrel. As soon as they figure that out I'm sure SBRs in .264 will be all the rave.
    Last edited by BES; 06-22-2016 at 10:01 AM.
    " The true Soldier fights not because what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by breakingtime91 View Post
    Makes complete sense, doubt they will change anytime soon
    Yep. Given the budget disaster that is currently happening, there is going to be little money for practice small arms ammunition, much less for new weapons and a new caliber, and the fiscal nightmare that Obamacare/Medicaid/Medicare are slowly creating is going to ensure that the military is going to be starved for funds for the indefinite future.

    So what little money that is available is going to have to go to bigger priorities (which in my book would include keeping the A-10), and as usual small arms and small arms ammunition are probably going to be an afterthought.

    The truth is, 5.56 and 7.62 work well enough and we are set up for them. Could we do better? Absolutely, but the choice going forward is going to be guns or (free-ish if not very good) healthcare and there are a lot more votes in healthcare than in guns when an increasingly small percentage of the country is related to anyone who is, or who ever has been, in the service.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    Several makers have been experimenting with polymer cases for ages, the question is telescoped or conventional. Steel and aluminum cases seem to be out of the running at the moment for tech and weight reasons.

    First you have to decide on WHAT you want from a cartridge, as you cannot obviously have it all. The .264 USA is very close in recoil impulse to the 7.62x51 (it has less size, weight, and recoil, and ballistics equal or better due to better sectional density and lower drag bullets), so the "intermediate round" idea is largely abandoned. Combined with a low weight case, it would make for a terrific rifle, carbine, LMG and even a good MMG round. But it would not be ideal for very short barrels, nor for full auto fire in carbines/rifles.

    The trend would be towards accurate semi auto fire in carbines/rifles, with a more powerful round than 5.56.

    The type of bullet to be adopted is another variable: would it be a variation of the M855A1 (fragmenting), or an expansive bullet similar to the Mk318? Both have their pros and cons.

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Failure2Stop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    FL Space Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by spinmove_ View Post
    To keep from further deviating the other thread in the other sub-forum, I figured it was best to just start a new thread.



    I'm all for not fixing something that's not broken, but it strikes me that if you have a cartridge that performs well terminally that could replace both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 and it comes at little cost of recoil and capacity over 5.56, then why wouldn't they go with that? I mean, I get it, that's quite a bit for initial costs of new hardware and all that, but it would serve Big Army far better than the XM17 trials, would simplify logistics, and give our troops a more effective standard rifle. Sure it's not a NATO caliber...yet...but if it cuts the mustard I don't see how you couldn't make it a new NATO standard.

    On top of that, a 6.5mm bullet from a cartridge that sounds like is performing about on par with 6.5 Grendel or better could also be shoe-horned into a role of bolt-action hunting rifle. Bolt-action, general purpose carbine, and also probably SPR and DMR. That's 4 different roles filled by one caliber. Am I way off base here or does this make sense to others as well?
    It makes so much sense it literally gives me a headache.
    Director Of Sales
    Knight's Armament Company

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by spinmove_ View Post
    I mean, I get it, that's quite a bit for initial costs of new hardware and all that, but it would serve Big Army far better than the XM17 trials, would simplify logistics, and give our troops a more effective standard rifle. Sure it's not a NATO caliber...yet...but if it cuts the mustard I don't see how you couldn't make it a new NATO standard.
    The problem is that there isn't any money in it. In the defense field, guns are not a good long term money maker. They last a long time and they have relatively low maintenance cost. The $350 million for the Army's MHS wouldn't cover 6 months of maintenance on an aircraft carrier, and then there are the aircraft and the other ships in the float.

    A new weapon system would be a one time small money project. Until there's a way to attach a long term income stream to guns, they're not going to be at front of DOD spending.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Rochester Hills, MI
    Ok, so basically thanks to the many layers of people who are in the right positions making some less than ideal decisions, the military in general won't be adopting .264USA any time soon. That's all well and fine, but that doesn't necessarily mean widespread adoption can't take place. Take .300BLK for example. I wouldn't necessarily call it widespread adoption just yet, but if the trend of a short, lightweight, and easily suppressed AR platform with a .30 caliber cartridge keeps up, it just might reach that state and that's all without military adoption. I could see the .264USA literally doing everything else the .300BLK can't and then some. Is there anyone lined up to start producing rifles for the general public for this cartridge?

  10. #10
    Member JHC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    North Georgia
    After I saw Doc's passing reference to it I searched on it. Never heard of it before. Sounds pretty slick. Ideal is seems for the CZ 527 carbine once it is adopted by the Mil.
    “Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •