7mm Murry.

[paulosantos]

I was reading something on BARFCOM where Magpul wrote something about a new round called the 7mm Murry. Anyone know what that is all about? I wonder if it is based on the SPC with the 7mm bullets.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=395832&page=3#bottom

[marinesg1012]

A google search comes up with nothing........

[rcrandall]

I was speaking with DocGKR on the phone last year trying to figure out what would be the best duty round for the 6.8 and he mentioned the 7mm Murray. I don't know much about it by he said it was a bad ass new round that surpassed the 6.8 and .308 and would be the shizzle! I get the impression it wouldn't fit in a standard 5.56 type mag well but probably required a new weapon. Maybe he could jump in here and give more details?

[Bigfoot]

IIRC it's the 7.62x45 Chech necked down. It's too long for the AR-15.

[constructor]

It's another Murray/Holland round but this time they just designed the best combat cartridge with no restrictions like it has to fit in an existing AR platform.

[Tim_W]

Yep Constructor has it.
Chechz 7.62x45 necked down to 7mm which actually makes it 7x46. It is looked to as being an overall replacement round if you did not have to meet the mag well restrictions of the AR. It can be loaded with a large variety of bullets to allow for both long Range crew served combat rifles etc... It would effectively be able to replace both the 5.56 and 7.62. But again this is not to fit in an AR mag well.Modified Robison XCR and Massads would work.

[Hussar]

Here is a posting from DocGKR on another forum (sorry the pics didn't turn out):

Interesting observations.

As discussed previously, while the 6.8 mm has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding terminal performance in JSWB-IPT testing, FBI BRF testing, USMC testing, and the recent CTTSO/TSWG MURG Congressional demonstration, keep in mind that the 6.8 mm design is a compromise that does not maximize assault rifle terminal performance, as it is constrained by the requirement to fit and function in the 5.56 mm M4/M16 magazine. The 6.5 mm Grendel is inhibited by this same limitation.

Primary focus during SPC cartridge design was to offer improved terminal performance, accuracy and flight characteristics from CQB range out to 500 meters from the M4 type platform compared to all existing 5.56 mm loads. The SPC was required to be easily retrofitting to current SOF 5.56 mm rifles (HK416, Mk18, M4, Mk12, M16) and be adaptable to proposed future systems (SCAR-L/Mk16, XM-8). The 6.8 mm SPC easily meets these criteria and has proven extremely reliable and durable in extensive functional testing.

Below is a 6.8 mm Horn 115 gr OTM shot fired from a 12” barrel into a bare gel block at 100m. MV = 2466 f/s, Impact Vel = 2263 f/s. Pen = 13.5”, NL = 1”, Max TC = 4.5” diam at 4.5” depth, extending from 1 to 9”. RW = 85.6 gr.


---------------------------------

If freed from the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC, an “idealized” combat rifle cartridge, can be explored. As noted, virtually every wound ballistic test in the last 100 years points to a 6.5-7mm cartridge as offering the ideal combat performance--be it the 1920’s era .276 Pederson, the post WWII .270 & .280 British cartridges, or the newer SPC program.

While at USAMU, Cris Murray, one of the co-designers of the 6.8 mm SPC simultaneously developed an “ideal” combat rifle cartridge, with none of the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC. Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, offers better range and terminal performance than 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 mm SPC, or any other common assault rifle cartridges, including 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. Since the 7 x 46 mm is based on the proven Czech military 7.62 x 45 mm cartridge, it has an established record feeding and functioning in both magazine and belt-fed full-auto fire. Likewise, recoil appears manageable and weapons remain controllable in FA fire, just as with the Czech cartridge. Like the 6.8 mm, the 7 x 46 mm is optimized for shorter barrels and larger magazines than the heavier, bulkier, and harsher recoiling 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 cartridge. In addition to Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, the older FN 7 mm's (7 x 44 mm, 7 x 47 mm, and 7 x 49 mm), as well as the newer 6.5 mm Creedmore are worthy of consideration. For that matter, revisiting the British .270/.280 wouldn’t be a bad idea. Keep in mind that the OAL of these cartridges is a bit too long to fit into the M4/M16 or other 5.56 mm size weapons/magazines



As a result, these cartridges should ideally be used in all new rifle designs optimized for their characteristics.

Below is a 7 x 46 mm shot from a 16” barrel, using the 120 gr Hornady OTM fired into a bare gel block at 100 meters. MV = 2801 f/s, Impact Vel = 2529 f/s. Pen = 15.5”, NL = 1.5”, Max TC = 6” diam at 5” depth, extending from 1.5 to 9”. RW = 84.2 gr.



Hard armor of NIJ Level III/SAPI protective levels will stop ALL standard military OTM and FMJ, including mild steel core ammo, such as 5.45x39 mm M74 FMJ, 5.56 mm M193 and M855 FMJ along with Mk262 OTM, 7.62x39mm M43 FMJ, 7.62 x 51 mm M80 FMJ and M118LR OTM, 7.62 x 54 mm Type L FMJ, and .30-06 M2 FMJ. This same Level III armor can be easily be penetrated by any of the same calibers listed above when using common military AP ammo.

If you want to stop most rifle AP ammo such as the .30-06 M2 AP "black-tip, all you need to do is use NIJ Level IV/eSAPI type hard armor. Yet even that can be penetrated using the right ammunition... Penetrating armor is not about caliber--it is about bullet construction.


As I have publicly stated previously, we have three choices:
-- Adopt improved barrier blind 5.56 mm ammunition for our current weapons.
-- Adopt an improved intermediate assault rifle caliber, like 6.5G or 6.8 SPC, that can be retrofitted to our current and near term weapons.
-- Adopt a larger case capacity combat caliber, like 7 x 46 mm or an enhanced 7.62 x 51 mm load, along with a new modern rifle system.

A Mk16 SCAR-L in 6.8 mm would indeed be nice…how about a 7x46 mm Magpul Massood?

[zoli818]

Sound interesting :shock:

Just a question why cant you put it in the AR10 platform?? yea its Tad bigger but you can save weight im sure some where else..and would have plenty of room in there...far as i remember Ar10 was the grampa of the ar15..its been around long time like the m1a..so its proven system

[Tim_W]

You can and it has been done. MGI with the magwell conversion for use with a mod M14 mag + the Oly WSSM upper. That gets you everything you need.

[DocGKR]

7 x 46 mm could be put into an AR10/SR25, however weapons of this type, including the SR25, Mk11, M110, KAC SR25K, etc... have NOT proven to be very reliable in combat. In addition, if you are going to go to a large weapon like an AR10/SR25, you might as well stick to a .308 based system, be it 7.62 x 51 mm, 7 mm-08, .260 Rem, or 6.5 Creedmore.


As discussed previously, while the 6.8 mm has repeatedly demonstrated outstanding terminal performance in JSWB-IPT testing, FBI BRF testing, USMC testing, and the recent CTTSO/TSWG MURG Congressional demonstration, keep in mind that the 6.8 mm design is a compromise that does not maximize assault rifle terminal performance, as it is constrained by the requirement to fit and function in the 5.56 mm M4/M16 magazine. The 6.5 mm Grendel is inhibited by this same limitation.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/SPC_trials.jpg

Primary focus during SPC cartridge design was to offer improved terminal performance, accuracy and flight characteristics from CQB range out to 500 meters from the M4 type platform compared to all existing 5.56 mm loads. The SPC was required to be easily retrofitting to current SOF 5.56 mm rifles (HK416, Mk18, M4, Mk12, M16) and be adaptable to proposed future systems (SCAR-L/Mk16, XM-8). The 6.8 mm SPC easily meets these criteria and has proven extremely reliable and durable in extensive functional testing.

Below is a 6.8 mm Horn 115 gr OTM shot fired from a 12” barrel into a bare gel block at 100m. MV = 2466 f/s, Impact Vel = 2263 f/s. Pen = 13.5”, NL = 1”, Max TC = 4.5” diam at 4.5” depth, extending from 1 to 9”. RW = 85.6 gr.
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/6.8mmRem115grOTM_12in_100m_top.jpg

---------------------------------

If freed from the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC, an “idealized” combat rifle cartridge, can be explored. As noted, virtually every wound ballistic test in the last 100 years points to a 6.5-7mm cartridge as offering the ideal combat performance--be it the 1920’s era .276 Pederson, the post WWII .270 & .280 British cartridges, or the newer SPC program.

While at USAMU, Cris Murray, one of the co-designers of the 6.8 mm SPC simultaneously developed an “ideal” combat rifle cartridge, with none of the M4/M16 platform imposed design compromises that limit both the 6.5 mm Grendel and 6.8 mm SPC. Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, offers better range and terminal performance than 6.5 mm Grendel, 6.8 mm SPC, or any other common assault rifle cartridges, including 5.45 x 39 mm, 5.56 x 45 mm and 7.62 x 39 mm. Since the 7 x 46 mm is based on the proven Czech military 7.62 x 45 mm cartridge, it has an established record feeding and functioning in both magazine and belt-fed full-auto fire. Likewise, recoil appears manageable and weapons remain controllable in FA fire, just as with the Czech cartridge. Like the 6.8 mm, the 7 x 46 mm is optimized for shorter barrels and larger magazines than the heavier, bulkier, and harsher recoiling 7.62 x 51 mm/.308 cartridge. In addition to Murray’s 7 x 46 mm, the older FN 7 mm's (7 x 44 mm, 7 x 47 mm, and 7 x 49 mm), as well as the newer 6.5 mm Creedmore are worthy of consideration. For that matter, revisiting the British .270/.280 wouldn’t be a bad idea. Keep in mind that the OAL of these cartridges is a bit too long to fit into the M4/M16 or other 5.56 mm size weapons/magazines

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/7x46inmags.jpg

As a result, these cartridges should ideally be used in all new rifle designs optimized for their characteristics.

Below is a 7 x 46 mm shot from a 16” barrel, using the 120 gr Hornady OTM fired into a bare gel block at 100 meters. MV = 2801 f/s, Impact Vel = 2529 f/s. Pen = 15.5”, NL = 1.5”, Max TC = 6” diam at 5” depth, extending from 1.5 to 9”. RW = 84.2 gr.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/7mmHorn120grOTM100m16in.jpg

Hard armor of NIJ Level III/SAPI protective levels will stop ALL standard military OTM and FMJ, including mild steel core ammo, such as 5.45x39 mm M74 FMJ, 5.56 mm M193 and M855 FMJ along with Mk262 OTM, 7.62x39mm M43 FMJ, 7.62 x 51 mm M80 FMJ and M118LR OTM, 7.62 x 54 mm Type L FMJ, and .30-06 M2 FMJ. This same Level III armor can be easily be penetrated by any of the same calibers listed above when using common military AP ammo.

If you want to stop most rifle AP ammo such as the .30-06 M2 AP "black-tip, all you need to do is use NIJ Level IV/eSAPI type hard armor. Yet even that can be penetrated using the right ammunition... Penetrating armor is not about caliber--it is about bullet construction.

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/M1carbine_3006.jpg

7.62x33mm, 5.56x45mm, 6.8x43mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x45mm, 7x46mm, 6.5x47mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x63mm

As I have publicly stated previously, we have three choices:
-- Adopt improved barrier blind 5.56 mm ammunition for our current weapons.
-- Adopt an improved intermediate assault rifle caliber, like 6.5G or 6.8 SPC, that can be retrofitted to our current and near term weapons.
-- Adopt a larger case capacity combat caliber, like 7 x 46 mm or an enhanced 7.62 x 51 mm load, along with a new modern rifle system.

[rcrandall]

What's the reality of this round being developed for military, LE, and civilian use?

[ArtFWTx]

Thanks DocGKR. Great informative post. I can see all these recent developments "confusing" the military evaluation and procurement system so much they'll end up doing nothing.

[DocGKR]

Cris Murray has recently written:


"I've got factory made 7x46mm brass from Privi Partizan. Their brass is made straight from long 7.62x39 blank cartridge case they make and has the nice thick Russian rim, I want. Hopefully I'l be able to finish the pressure and powder tests this time, I'm trying to keep the speed at 2650 fps with a 130 gr projectile with pressure below 50K; all this out of a 16.5in barrel. Our last tests were good, but I need to document them with telemetry."

[Tim_W]

That is awesome. The one thing that will make or break a cartridge, cases that are ready made not having to be formed by the end user.

[Hussar]

Thanks DocGKR-

While I haven't played with these, based on what I've seen/read, I would get that warm and fuzzy feeling if the Army adopted this cartridge and put it in a platform like the Magpul Masoud (like the Masada, but uses 7.62 x 51mm as it's baseline calibre). I'm sure that Magpul could manufacture PMags for the new cartridge/weapon system's magwell.

If Magpul were to set up a manufacturing agreement with LWRC, maybe they could also incorporate LWRC's OBA (Open Bolt Automatic) system into the design for use as a SAW. :wink:

[ArtFWTx]

How about an "intermediate length" AR upper and lower receiver to handle this round? Would expanding the lower receiver in the magwell area and a similar expansion of the upper receiver be easy to do to get rifles in 7mm Murray in the market? We already have a proven platform available in DI and Piston configurations so why not just expand the AR receivers and other components to run this caliber? It wouldn't weigh as much as an AR10 either.

[Tim_W]

A normal AR-15 upper will not work. The bolt barrel extension will not handle it. As I said before if you want to et they smaller package then the AR-10s for this you cna use the MGI lower whihc has the magwell intended for the 308 that they can;t et to work and then use a Oly WSSM upper. The only dif in the upper is made to handle the bigger barrel extension. They already have a bolt that will work I think and if not they can be made by PTG but would need volume to offset cost. Not sure if MGI has released the mag well yet but I know they have it.

[Yute]

Cris Murray has recently written:


"I've got factory made 7x46mm brass from Privi Partizan. Their brass is made straight from long 7.62x39 blank cartridge case they make and has the nice thick Russian rim, I want. Hopefully I'l be able to finish the pressure and powder tests this time, I'm trying to keep the speed at 2650 fps with a 130 gr projectile with pressure below 50K; all this out of a 16.5in barrel. Our last tests were good, but I need to document them with telemetry."


That is pretty amazing! I hope this cartridge does get off the ground... In my mind, the .270 British cartridge closer resembles the Murray round than the .280/30 at least externally, but both are very close in terms of performance. 7mm keeps coming up throughout cartridge design history... In law enforcement, they would call that a clue!

Best of luck to Mr. Murray...


I wonder what civilians will think of this cartridge. What I love about this forum is that this discussion is taking place... Other places would not be so friendly about it!

[zoli818]

Good & interesting info here....
I always like the Privi Partizan brass :shock: ...i got a good stock for all my Favrt Cal. and its cheap also :)
i wonder how far the project will go...a nice bullet is a thing of beauty
http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd336/zoli818/02/S6300010.jpg
178gr Amax&pvri 300WM

[Tim_W]

They are the only Hrdy bullet I really like. The A-Max is a very nice bullet. I wish Hrdy would realize that and stop making every bullet other then this line with spire or secant noses.There are hell to tune unless you care seating jamming into the lands. The A-max is very easy to tune.

[Bigfoot]

I'm not sure I like an intermediate cartridge, I have a different idea.

Don't shrink the cartridge use a .308 based cartridge, in this case 7mm-08, but shrink the gun instead.

It can be loaded down a bit if they choose to. Mags and belts are available. Platforms are available, M60, M-14.

Here's the platform style that the Mil should adopt IMO.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/ ... MG4069.flv (http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/KrazyL117/?action=view&current=CIMG4069.flv)

The supressor is helping with recoil and muzzle rise here.

They have changed the design to enable barrel swaps and will offer additional barrels. I'd like to have a 260 and a 338 Federal barrel but a 7mm-08 barrel would work also.

[Cohibra45]

I'm not sure I like an intermediate cartridge, I have a different idea.

Don't shrink the cartridge use a .308 based cartridge, in this case 7mm-08, but shrink the gun instead.

It can be loaded down a bit if they choose to. Mags and belts are available. Platforms are available, M60, M-14.

Here's the platform style that the Mil should adopt IMO.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/ ... MG4069.flv (http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c362/KrazyL117/?action=view&current=CIMG4069.flv)

The supressor is helping with recoil and muzzle rise here.

They have changed the design to enable barrel swaps and will offer additional barrels. I'd like to have a 260 and a 338 Federal barrel but a 7mm-08 barrel would work also.

The only thing I think wrong with using the 308 based cartridges (any caliber) is recoil on F/A. That is very hard to control with light weapons platforms!!!!!!!! :shock: This was proven in the M-14 back in the late 50's and early 60's and anyone who has handled the M-14/M1A knows that it isn't a light rifle by any means. If you place that round in a lighter platform, even the bullpup design, it would be extremely difficult to control accuracy under F/A!!!

That is one of the reasons the 5.56 was adopted in the first place...along with a lot of other reasons of course. For the majority of troops, a lighter recoiling harder hitting round is what is desirable and that is where the 6.8 SPC and the 7mm Murray come in. The 6.8 recoils harder than the 5.56, but not anything that can't be easily overcome. The 7mm Murray would have to have a completely new platform, but the designs for something like that could be designed fairly quickly if needed. I believe, like DocGKR, that the military needs something better right now. The 'easiest' fix is a better 5.56 round, but I believe the better fix that could be done in the next 6 months is starting fazing in the 6.8 SPC along with complete piston uppers! That of course is just an opinion, but, everyone is entitled to one right!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Take care,

Kelly

[Bigfoot]

[quote="Bigfoot"]It can be loaded down a bit if they choose to. [quote] To 7mm Murry specs and recoil impulse.

BTW the RFB bullpup in the link isn't perfect in any caliber. Great idea but it needs to lose some weight IMO.

Since a light and compact weapon is important to me I'd prefer a lighter bullpup in 6.8 to either 7mm weapon. It delivers plenty of power and range.

[Tim_W]

The part to remember right now any gun that can shoot this round is bigger and heavier and that is the opposite direction the US Mil is going. They want SBR light CQB focused weapons. This round as Doc has said is a good idea only if a entirely new weapon system is used. If its going to be in the AR-10 Big SCAR sized weapons then you can do the same thing with a downloaded necked down to 7mm 308 or jsut he 308 as is.Then you have the room for the extra power when needed. If you wanted the 7mm then go .284 08. The 7 Murray is perfect when you put it into a new weapons platform that is the size of the 5.56/6.8 size weight weapons with the the specs to allow the slightly longer round. It will 3easily work in a AR sized weapon if you have a bigger mag well and area for the beefier barrel extension. The 6.8 can be had with changing only the part that are changed out in general maintenances of the AR anyways so its an easy swap and a very low cost upgrade. There is no increased cost for the barrel as its still the same AR barrel spec. No increase for the bolt as its the same size and type bolt. The mag there maybe a small increase but still you have to replace mags regularly too. The only real cost increase is the ammo as they take more resources. More copper lead powder. Logistics is the real work area but hey in the middle of a war we went thru not only a caliber but weapon switch over so this is nothing and a much smaller conflict.

[constructor]

They want light, good 600yd terminal ballistics, move SAWs away from the belt feed, so drum fed that they can exchange with reg mags. short barrels, interchangable calibers and barrel lengths and a non DI system.
A high performanced 6.8 might really be the answer. It fits the smaller lighter platform, mags are available and betas can be modified to work. Bullets with drive bands hitting 2800fps from 16" barrels should extend the range of terminal performance.
Sounds like we need to use our current configuration, have Art load some "Combat +P" ammo to 2800 while staying under 54000 psi to keep temp and port erosion down and test the proper non DI system. :wink: I guess we start next week huh?
We need to talk Art into changing powders to 10X or 335 and adding the flash suppressant to it because we can get more velocity with less pressure from over the counter powder than with the MK262 powder.

Tim,
Can you test the combat loads in your rifle against other loads and find the fastest load with a maximum pressure of 54k?
I think 335 will do it maybe 2460, too bad we can't get Nitrochemie 300.
I would say do it with the 115s. Then when I get the 3 grooves we will confirm the pressure and change the load to hit 54k.
We really need a 115 with drive bands, poly tip and a BC of .400

[marinesg1012]

Would the Plastic tips be allowed by the .mil? I agree the 110 or the 115 Bthp would be the way to go, it has already passed the muster with the mil lawyers and if we can get it screaming out of the carbine it could be a semi easy sell.

[paulosantos]

Would the Plastic tips be allowed by the .mil? I agree the 110 or the 115 Bthp would be the way to go, it has already passed the muster with the mil lawyers and if we can get it screaming out of the carbine it could be a semi easy sell.

No Plastic Tips. BTHP is OK.

[marinesg1012]

Why do we want to go away from a belt fed and to a drum mag? the 100 round nut sacks on the para saws are easy to handle and after you burn through that I would rather have the 200 rounds from the belt...

Just wondering the thought process is all.

[zoli818]

Why do we want to go away from a belt fed and to a drum mag?


+1
It would be very weird shooting my buddies MG42 F/A with out a belt ....

[constructor]

For SAWs only they want to be able to borrow a mag from a buddy or off the ground if they run out of ammo,

[Empty Brass]

The M249 is cool, but the MK48 is one heck of a fun gun to shoot. Love that little spatter noise.

[marinesg1012]

For SAWs only they want to be able to borrow a mag from a buddy or off the ground if they run out of ammo,

You can supposedly do that with the saws now the problem is that no mag can keep up with the cyclic rate of the saw.....

[zoli818]

Makes scene , i could of swore the saw was able to to take magz also
i seen it on the military channel ,maybe it was another squad weapon
they should make the gas adustable for the saw so u can lower the cycling and still shoot OFF the magz , so your not there with a empty Saw and your d**k in your hand empty LOL

Ps- i unloaded a belt with the Mg42 into a fridge at 200yrd and it cut it in half lol :twisted:

[Frankyoz]

The saw is able to use a mag, but it is very prone to jamming.

[Tim_W]

Would the Plastic tips be allowed by the .mil? I agree the 110 or the 115 Bthp would be the way to go, it has already passed the muster with the mil lawyers and if we can get it screaming out of the carbine it could be a semi easy sell.

No Plastic Tips. BTHP is OK.


Actually, IIUC, only if that tip was used for the intent of causing expansion. You can put tips on with very small cavities so there would be obvious intent was increases BC and prevent tip damage. Actually we do not belong to any treaties that limit what ammo we can use and all the treaties that do exist are very out dated and make zero sense.

I don't even understand the point. Any country we woudl goto war with would not be following any such treaties and most foreseeable conflicts will not be with countries. But to look at them Iran, Syria, N Korea, China, .Do you honestly beleive these countries which are known for ignoring UN and any other treaties or rules are going to not use whatever they can that might give and edge!?! Its kind of like 99.9% of the laws in the USA. The only people they restrict are the good law abiding citizens limiting their freedoms. The only people the Rules on non expanding bullets is going to hurt is us and our allies not our enemies.

Not to mention the whole idiocy of them. They are to limit needless suffering. Well a expanding hollow point is going to kill much more often then a FMJ and quicker. I bet the FMJ's cause far more suffering. The whole idea is the bullet being desinged to cause needless suffering? I say no it is being designed to cause necessary killing.

If its the power thing well we can shoot people with a 50 cal or mini gun drop napalm on them or cluster bomb etc but a bullet that expands is out?

[marinesg1012]

I agreew with you completely tim, I am all for carrying hollow point and every thing else I can carry to kill bad people quicker, but I am not the jag lawyer saying we cant.....

[Tim_W]

What I don't get is since these are not official battle combatants then this is not a war but a police action as there is no official country we are at war with. Given that as I under the JAGs code they work off it would allow for non standard munitions. Basically anything not specially banned from any use such as chemical biologicals but other then that basically anything goes so.............

[marinesg1012]

What I don't get is since these are not official battle combatants then this is not a war but a police action as there is no official country we are at war with. Given that as I under the JAGs code they work off it would allow for non standard munitions. Basically anything not specially banned from any use such as chemical biologicals but other then that basically anything goes so.............

I try not to understand it. I would rather every one be issued exploding bullets like in the movies and be done with it :D

[STRWMN]

I hope this one gets off the ground a lot of work has gone into this one. Mostly a product of one mans' design.

[constructor]

Isn't it being tested mostly on the AR25 platform? I sent a PM to Doc to ask if Murray had a dedicated platform.
If Murray doesn't have one I would be interested in building my AR1 design to fit exactly. Do you know the OAL?
I know it's based on the Czech but I need a OAL and case taper to design a mag and mag well.

[Tim_W]

C,

Check you email account some info inbound.

[marinesg1012]

This would be another reloading only round correct?

[rcrandall]

Someone said the SAW should have an adjustable gas system. It does, the gas regulator has two settings, 725 and 1100 rounds per minute. Keep it on 725 otherwise you can have malfunctions even with belted ammo. I was a SAW gunner for about a year and had a few good double feeds from shooting on 1100 rpm. The 1100 setting is for when the SAW is so fouled the gas flow needs to be opened up to keep functioning.

[mflintstone]

I to was a saw gunner for a year.
I had a jam so bad they deadlined the gun.
I guess it takes a bullet and a belt link jam todo it right.
And shooting the saw from a magazine really sucked.
Oh dont forget blanks caused some jam issues to.

[ron169]

This would be another reloading only round correct?

In a perfect world without polictical bullcrap, what they are saying is this would replace the .223 and the .308 for the military. It wouldnt be a reload only because the market would be flooded with milsurp!

[marinesg1012]

This is not a perfect world.

[dark1]

The old saws were adjustable the new barrels have a self regulator that jams all the time

[marinesg1012]

I am a saw gunner currently we shoot ours probably once a week or so, if you keep it lubed she runs fine. if she is dry she goes down. My Saw is pretty new and is a para saw so that helps, the old worn out saws need to be replaced.

[dark1]

yeah all the SAWS my unit had in iraq were old worn out guns that they put new barrels and M4 but stocks on.
one of the big probs was you need to run them wet but in IRAQ if you run them wet they jam more then if you run them dry my unit ended up leaving our saws behind most of the time just using our ARs and using out gun trucks with out M2s and the 240b fore fire support. i am reley looking forwerd to the 240e6 http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/fire ... id=FNM0139 (http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF015&gid=FNG008&mid=FNM0139) and the MK48 http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/fire ... gid=FNG008 (http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/firearms/family.asp?fid=FNF060&gid=FNG008) both are in 7.62 and are a lot ezer to hump i am in a NTM warfare unit so we hump almost every where when we are not in Iraq and humping a full 240 sux =) and ither of them can be chamberd for the 7x45 with no prob

[constructor]

This would be another reloading only round correct?
That depends on adoption, It really doesn't take that much to have a company load for you and since this parent brass is made somewhere in the world it wouldn't be that difficult to set up a dillon and turn out 800 -1000/hr.
Jamison in SD makes many different types of brass, just have to get your name on a production schedule.

They way I am looking at this is If I can build a 300 million dollar stadium in 2 years building a little rifle and making some ammo really shouldn't be much of a problem.

[marinesg1012]

I guess I need to reload.... I dont know much about 300 million dollar stadiums but I know there needs to be a demand before companies will make it.

[constructor]

I guess I need to reload.... I dont know much about 300 million dollar stadiums but I know there needs to be a demand before companies will make it.

I didn't mean you should do it, just if Murray wants this to fly it wouldn't be hard for him or me to make it happen.

[marinesg1012]

I want to reload anyways, have wanted to for a while but life gets in the way sometime, now I atleast have the room for it, if not the time.

Whatever caliber you make your piston upper in, if you make it, I want it. :D

H did you get my pm's :D

[STRWMN]

To digress from the main topic:

IMHO the SAW is not one of my favorite weapons it has many problems, and I sometimes wonder if it is worth all the effort- you have to have a good maintenance section to keep them up to par. Here are what some of the problems I have seen:
Worn/broken extractors- these have to be changed fairly often.
Improper operator maintenance especially when it comes to cleaning properly the gas system parts.
Worn ejector noses.
Worn out feed trays-this is a good one most people never catch this one.
Cracked receiver welds- a problem with US mfrd. ones for awhile.
Worn bolts and bulged bolt carriers.
Bad piston assemblys and gas tubes.
One of the major problems with the new short barrels on the SAW is very few clean the compensators well and this leads to cycling issues especially in a marginal or older weapon-the shorty compensator is part of the gas system on short barrels.
At one point there were 2 conversions done on the SAW to work with 6.8 SPC.

[STRWMN]

Now returning to the main topic:

The 7x46 is an interesting cartridge, as of now there is no dedicated platform for it. It's designer is working on remedying that. But before putting the cart in front of the horse; the cartridge still has a few hurdles to pass through. Once the cartridge is perfected then a feed system must be done which is also now underway. Then finally the weapon to encompass it all. What most westerners don't understand about weapon design is first the cartridge is developed then a system to feed it and finally a weapon to utilize it. As was told me- You can have the greatest gun and cartridge design in the world but if your feed systyem sucks your weapon could be the worst in history. We here in the west especially in the US tend to think of a magazine as an accessory- not as a component part of the weapon.
It's designer is looking away from the M16 system as a platform for the new cartridge. One thing most don't understand is the 7x46s designer is far better a gun designer than a cartridge designer (which in that he is also pretty darn good at).

[marinesg1012]

I agree, mags and feeding issues in general is something the .mil continues to overlook. Just think about how far the AR mags have come and how most guys still get the aluminum with green follower.

[STRWMN]

Marinesg1012 True enough.

- I remember when the green follower mags came out and we were told that this fixes all the problems of the M16 magazine: Unfortunately that was not quite correct.

[marinesg1012]

The first thing I do when I get my mags is put Magpul followers and ranger plates on them. The military should of went to this system a long time ago, I have yet to have a mag fail with the magpul followers in them.

[Tim_W]

For me:

* MagPul Ranger Plates
* CMMG SS metal followers
* SSS, ISMI, or Tactical Springs cs springs.

I look at all the other mags thru out history that seem to run wonderfully and they all seem to use metal followers. Look at the HK 5.56 or Barrett 6.8 mags.

I have seen nothing but great reviews on the CMMG followers so its not a sample of one.

[STRWMN]

I just run with H&K mags when I go places and have to use the M16/M4 series. They are a bit heavier true, but I like them alot. One of my buddies downrange said he will try to get me some of the Magpul magazines which he really likes next time I go there.

I also prefer metal followers

[Hussar]

Getting back on topic. Does anyone know what kind of testing or development is going on with this cartridge?

-Are any large Ammo companies looking into it?

-Are any weapons manufacturers developing magazines and/or weapons platforms with this round as a possibility?

[constructor]

Getting back on topic. Does anyone know what kind of testing or development is going on with this cartridge?

-Are any large Ammo companies looking into it?

-Are any weapons manufacturers developing magazines and/or weapons platforms with this round as a possibility?
I believe Chris Murray is designing a rifle of his own specifically for the cartridge, it will take a lot of development and approval before any large company puts money into it.

[Tim_W]

They way I am looking at this is If I can build a 300 million dollar stadium in 2 years building a little rifle and making some ammo really shouldn't be much of a problem.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That's right don't let it get the best of you. I know you won't let no little 6lb pile of aluminum and steel kick your ass. Take the bull by the horns no matter how small or should I say juvenile pygmy goat instead of bull. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I know there is a reason why I found that so funny I jsut have to think of it.

:lol: :lol: :lol: OK now I remember :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[DDriller]

Hey Tim, you think it's a good thing scrap metal prices are still up? :lol:

[Tim_W]

Na he only throws every other one across the room and bouncing off the wall. :mrgreen: You should have heard him after he broke a piece he had been working on the lathe IIRC for a straight 14 hrs. What I woudl have given for a hidden video of that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[marinesg1012]

Na he only throws every other one across the room and bouncing off the wall. :mrgreen: You should have heard him after he broke a piece he had been working on the lathe IIRC for a straight 14 hrs. What I woudl have given for a hidden video of that. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:D :D :D I will remind him of the throwing when we are "testing" it blasting piggies :D

[Bimjo]

Y'all are fergittin' that throwin' stuff in the shop is a fine art! :lol:

I mean you have to consider arm angle, wrist snap, release point, weight of the thrown object, aerodynamics (okay, that might not factor in if weight is high and velocity is low), range to impact point, velocity required. Not to mention the proper vocabulary for an optimal launch.

As a lifetime tool thrower of no small repute I can honestly say it just ain't as easy as it looks. 8)

[constructor]

YUK, YUK, YUK
I know what every dent and every hole in every wall came from and learned something from each and every one including not to pitch and look away. Keep your eye on the flying object or at least duck :lol:
Gun parts are small, you should have been around when I had a shop building tube chassis for rock racers.
It's all been fun, just glad I am not stuck in a stuffy office or on an assembly line.

Designing products is the easy part, finding a shop to machine all those new complicated parts is the problem, at least until I decide to buy a 4 axis CNC. My buddy Ray who is also into the off-road racing is doing all of the prototype work for the AR1 and I hope I will be able to keep his machine running when we get the important mono-chassis back from the aluminum guy.
I really want to buy a machine to make the new bolt design but that specific machine is limited in what it else it can do.
If the supply from other companies starts to dwindle I will have no choice.

Most combat rifles were designed so they could be easily and cheaply produced by relatively simple equipt in a time of war.
I would like to have seen exactly how they produced the m16 in 1965 because when I take a AR15 bolt into most machine shops they just shake their head and say "no way"
Sorry about contributing to derail the Murray thread.

[constructor]

If the XCR thread was moved shouldn't this one also?

[paulosantos]

If the XCR thread was moved shouldn't this one also?

Yes I moved it. This thread was started before we had the new sections.

[constructor]

If the XCR thread was moved shouldn't this one also?

Yes I moved it. This thread was started before we had the new sections.
This place is growing unbelievably fast :D

[marinesg1012]

If the XCR thread was moved shouldn't this one also?

Yes I moved it. This thread was started before we had the new sections.
This place is growing unbelievably fast :D

it bodes well for the cartridge....

[STRWMN]

It will take some time before anything real happens with this cartridge. There has been some testing done and when it's designer returns to the project he will push into the next phase of development.
Designing a rifle is not too particularly difficult; designing one that is simple to use, operate and maintain and stay reliable any condition takes a little more knowledge.
This cartridge since being started a few years ago has come quite a ways- the toughtest thing was getting a reliable source of brass in any quantity for protoyping and testing- that has finally been solved. Advanced load development will be underway soon.
The rifle design for the 7x46 has gone through many minor re-designs since being first drafted but the devil lies in finding someone to produce the necessary components and to getting a customer.
One of the reasons why development in the military takes so long: Is that first every interested party in the military will have their say, then a solicitation goes out. Someone form the market place has to bring something forth and it be evaluated and at some point tested. After that comes a myriad of other tests and laborius tasks. Then after a few more steps the conclusion is arrived at. It can be as little as two years or as much as eight before a weapon is accepted. Remember, John Garand did not make his rifle overnight; I think he started in 1926 and finally had something decent by 1934 and got it accepted in 1936 or so (and that was working in a fully equipped arsenal). I'd be willing to bet this was similarly true for Mr. Stoner and also the Kalashnikov design team.
One of my gripes about alot of the "Cool Guy", "Gucci" stuff out there is while some of it has merit, quite a bit of it is usually half-baked or too specialized and poorly tested if tested at all. Giving a few items to a few soldiers or police hardly constitutes a test (while some useful information of course can be gained). I understand in the civilian world alot of what is out there will work for most guns that will never be used more than taken out of a safe and had a few rounds popped of through it and then a fair amount of the time cleaned and decently cared for by its owner. I always look towards the lowest common denominator when thinking about hard use equipment.
I am not trying to assault or insult any one in particular on this bit, but I dislike seeing products marketed too soon for folks who must rely on them on a daily basis- but I also understand how business works and that you usually are not able to spend as much time as would would be liked.

[marinesg1012]

All of the "gucci" crap people put on their rifles and none of it is needed for most applications, the nice thing about rails was the modular aspect, you could change your rifle for the mission you were sent to accomplish, to many people try to strap everything onto the rifle when really you only need one or two things for that particular mission.

once you start doing that you get rid of the best aspect of the M4 design which is light wieght and maneuverability.

Either way it would be nice if you could get the SCAR or another existing design to accept the &mm murry and then we could worry about getting ammo made up for it.

[STRWMN]

Hello again:

Sorry I had to pop out for awhile 2 deployments and alot of other stuff since last I was here. The 7x46 will be under more testing soon. It's designer will be coming back from a rather long deployment and he will pick up where he left off on this project very soon. I will be moving back to the USA finally and get back into the main stream again on this cartridge and I have alot of catching up to do on the 6.8 it would seem.

I like the new site BTW.

[ArtFWTx]

Hello again:

Sorry I had to pop out for awhile 2 deployments and alot of other stuff since last I was here. The 7x46 will be under more testing soon. It's designer will be coming back from a rather long deployment and he will pick up where he left off on this project very soon. I will be moving back to the USA finally and get back into the main stream again on this cartridge and I have alot of catching up to do on the 6.8 it would seem.

I like the new site BTW.

Welcome back.

[marinesg1012]

Hello again:

Sorry I had to pop out for awhile 2 deployments and alot of other stuff since last I was here. The 7x46 will be under more testing soon. It's designer will be coming back from a rather long deployment and he will pick up where he left off on this project very soon. I will be moving back to the USA finally and get back into the main stream again on this cartridge and I have alot of catching up to do on the 6.8 it would seem.

I like the new site BTW.

Welcome back. Keep us updated on the 7mm Murray if you can

[rcrandall]

So as I understand it, the 7mm Murray will require a larger weapon than the AR15 size rifle. Will it the rifles be the in the AR10 size range or somewhere in between that and the AR15 size?

[STRWMN]

As far as I know the 7x46 has yet to be tested in any semi-auto. All testing has been done out of test actions or universal receivers. The cartridge is too long for an AR-15 receiver. I am sure an AR-10 size rifle could be used eventually. But I think the magic would lie somewhere in between.
I should be meeting it's designer in a few weeks and I'll ask him what I can talk about it over open forums.

[ron169]

Strwmn, Keep us updated as much as possible on the progress with the new round. BTW, glad ya made it back to the states in one piece

[Cold]

Hello again:

Sorry I had to pop out for awhile 2 deployments and alot of other stuff since last I was here. The 7x46 will be under more testing soon. It's designer will be coming back from a rather long deployment and he will pick up where he left off on this project very soon. I will be moving back to the USA finally and get back into the main stream again on this cartridge and I have alot of catching up to do on the 6.8 it would seem.

I like the new site BTW.

Hey glad to see you posting here!
Thanks for stopping by and please do keep us posted on whatever info you can provide (without stepping out of bounds of course).

[244]

Indeed STRWMN, please keep us updated as best as you are allowed.

[stanc]

The discussions in the "Cris Murray e-mail" and "New British rifle" threads prompted me to search the forum, and came across this 7x46 thread started in 2008.

That is pretty amazing! I hope this cartridge does get off the ground... In my mind, the .270 British cartridge closer resembles the Murray round than the .280/30 at least externally, but both are very close in terms of performance. 7mm keeps coming up throughout cartridge design history...
That reminded me of something I'd read awhile back:

"It is a notable thing that whenever, and wherever, a commission sits to determine the ideal caliber for an infantry rifle, they always arrive at 7mm - it is an equally notable thing that nobody ever gets a 7mm cartridge as a result of it." ~Ian Hogg

After the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt reportedly urged the US Army to switch from .30 Krag to 7x57mm (7mm Mauser). Army leadership chose to go with the more powerful .30-03 Springfield.

Before the Second World War, the US Army had an opportunity to switch from .30-06 to 7x51mm (.276 Pedersen). Army leadership elected to stay with the more powerful .30-06 Springfield.

After the Second World War, the US Army had a chance to switch from .30-06 to 7x43mm (.280 British). Army leadership opted for the more powerful 7.62x51mm.

7mm does keep coming up, but .30 caliber keeps winning out. However, maybe 7x46mm will be the exception to the rule. What's that old saying about the fourth time being the charm? :a01:

In any case, I look forward to seeing what 7x46 info Murray may release in the next month or two. Whether or not it has any real chance of replacing 7.62 NATO, it's still an interesting cartridge.

---------------------------------

A somewhat related article that may be of interest:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/3006m_070607/

[RugerIte]

Or a 7mm-08 to cut down conversion costs for current MGs? :a21:

[constructor]

That is my question, if it has to have the AR10 platform why not use the 7mm-08? Because we already have a 308. IMO the 308 will never be replaced by something needing the same size rifle and needs all the new bullets developed, 308's already in the supply chain.

From what I gather the US is sitting back doing nothing while a few other foreign countries are testing a few new calibers.

If the single largest ammo producer starts loading a certain caliber it should be a huge sign to a movement.

[fireguy]

Ironic, each time the Army had a choice to go with a 7mm round, it went with whatever the "more powerful" option of the time was. Yet recently, there is the opportunity to use the 6.8...and so far, the decision seems to be to remain with the less powerful 5.56. I know there are myriad reasons for this, it's just odd when thought of in such simple terms.



The discussions in the "Cris Murray e-mail" and "New British rifle" threads prompted me to search the forum, and came across this 7x46 thread started in 2008.

That reminded me of something I'd read awhile back:

"It is a notable thing that whenever, and wherever, a commission sits to determine the ideal caliber for an infantry rifle, they always arrive at 7mm - it is an equally notable thing that nobody ever gets a 7mm cartridge as a result of it." ~Ian Hogg

After the Spanish-American War, Teddy Roosevelt reportedly urged the US Army to switch from .30 Krag to 7x57mm (7mm Mauser). Army leadership chose to go with the more powerful .30-03 Springfield.

Before the Second World War, the US Army had an opportunity to switch from .30-06 to 7x51mm (.276 Pedersen). Army leadership elected to stay with the more powerful .30-06 Springfield.

After the Second World War, the US Army had a chance to switch from .30-06 to 7x43mm (.280 British). Army leadership opted for the more powerful 7.62x51mm.

7mm does keep coming up, but .30 caliber keeps winning out. However, maybe 7x46mm will be the exception to the rule. What's that old saying about the fourth time being the charm? :a01:

In any case, I look forward to seeing what 7x46 info Murray may release in the next month or two. Whether or not it has any real chance of replacing 7.62 NATO, it's still an interesting cartridge.

---------------------------------

A somewhat related article that may be of interest:

http://www.rifleshootermag.com/ammunition/3006m_070607/

[stanc]

That is my question, if it has to have the AR10 platform why not use the 7mm-08? Because we already have a 308. IMO the 308 will never be replaced by something needing the same size rifle and needs all the new bullets developed, 308's already in the supply chain.[/i]
Concur. IMO, for any cartridge to have a chance of replacing 7.62x51, it will have to offer at least one (and probably both) of the following:

a. Significantly improved performance.
b. Significantly reduced weight.

In regards to the latter, see page 3 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

From what I gather the US is sitting back doing nothing while a few other foreign countries are testing a few new calibers.
If the US is not putting any effort into developing new metallic cartridges, it may be because they are banking on caseless or cased-telescoped ammo to become field ready. (Can you say "SPIW"? :a30: )

If the single largest ammo producer starts loading a certain caliber it should be a huge sign to a movement.
It could be. OTOH, hasn't that manufacturer introduced a cartridge or two that never proved very successful?

[constructor]

Concur. IMO, for any cartridge to have a chance of replacing 7.62x51, it will have to offer at least one (and probably both) of the following:

a. Significantly improved performance.
b. Significantly reduced weight.

In regards to the latter, see page 3 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

If the US is not putting any effort into developing new metallic cartridges, it may be because they are banking on caseless or cased-telescoped ammo to become field ready. (Can you say "SPIW"? :a30: )

It could be. OTOH, hasn't that manufacturer introduced a cartridge or two that never proved very successful?

Not the one I am talking about but maybe a division of the same company has.
Giving new calibers or weapons to SOF is one thing and not too far fetched but the big green would be on a completely different level.

[stanc]

Ironic, each time the Army had a choice to go with a 7mm round, it went with whatever the "more powerful" option of the time was.
Yes, but the first time it happened, they didn't opt for .30 caliber because it was more powerful than 7mm. They wanted to have 7mm Mauser performance, but also wanted to stick with the 220gr .308" bullets of the .30 Krag round. That desire forced them to use a more powerful cartridge.

The second time appears to have been primarily a financial decision. Military budgets were extremely tight due to the Great Depression, and there were large stockpiles of .30-06 ammo, so it was fiscally responsible decision. (And although it is still lamented by 7mm fans, it was probably very fortunate that .276 Pedersen was not adopted or we would've been in the middle of a caliber change when WWII started.)

The third time was a case of, "We won two world wars with .30 caliber, so why change?"

Yet recently, there is the opportunity to use the 6.8...and so far, the decision seems to be to remain with the less powerful 5.56. I know there are myriad reasons for this, it's just odd when thought of in such simple terms.
On the surface, it does seem odd. But, they don't really want to switch to another brass-cased cartridge now, when the LSAT developers are promising to have CTA or caseless ammo online in the near future. The military figures that 5.56 works well enough to serve until then.

[stanc]

A discussion in another forum jogged my memory. The 7x46 Murray is virtually identical to the 7x46 round that the British developed after WWII...and quickly dropped in favor of the fatter-cased 7x43 which delivered better performance due to its long, streamlined bullet.

Picture at: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10200&postcount=27

If Murray wanted to reinvent the British wheel, I wonder why he chose the option that they considered inferior?

ETA: Disregard the "thumbs down" symbol, which was unintentionally added. I just installed a new, much more sensitive mouse today, and have been inadvertantly clicking on things without trying.

[ron169]

Although I'm not an expert in technical stuff, maybe he didn't want a fatter case due to
A. Mag width
B. Mag curvature
C. Reliable feeding with greater shoulder angle
D. No good know MG links