TYR Tactical

AEWE – Demonstrating General Dynamics’ Reduced Range Ammunition

A Co / 1-29 Infantry (EXFOR) Soldiers conducted familiarization and qualification using the General Dynamics Reduced Range Ammunition.The 5.56mm and 7.62mm Reduced Range Training Ammunition from General Dynamics OTS are designed to reduce the maximum flight distance while maintaining a ballistic match with regular 5.56mm M855 and 7.62mm M80 cartridges.

The projectiles are solid brass while the cartridge case, primer and propellant are the same as those used in the conventional Army. The projectile is modified and the specifically designed fins gradually add drag, reduce the maximum range and prematurely force the projectile out of the sky. The cartridges are fired and require no modifications from current M240B and M249 SAW weapons which is transparent to Soldiers and small tactical units. This is operationally ideal for shorter SDZ live fire ranges for Soldier training and familiarization.

13 Responses to “AEWE – Demonstrating General Dynamics’ Reduced Range Ammunition”

  1. Darkhorse says:

    Curious what these will do if you shoot someone with them….

  2. Nathan Horner says:

    What will it cost man!? What will it cost!?

  3. DEM says:

    Does anyone else find it slightly ironic that the Army is interested in/developing both increased range and decreased range projectiles? I wonder if it is the same “shop” or where the two converge and how the interaction is with their higher on funding, publicity, and further advancement of their respective projects.

  4. ed says:

    Wow, just WOW! This is exactly what many on here have pointed out is how are premier Army does not train to the capability of the weapon but to the restrictions of the ranges which in no way remotely imitate the Real World environments. Way to go Army, why dont we just start training with blanks then when the SHTF we just use inert blue blue gun and yell “Bang, bang, bang” at the approaching enemy. Lol

    • Mac679 says:

      Stop being dramatic. I’ve only ever seen 5.56 SRTA used in a handful of places over the last 18 years. It’s most often used in shoothouses where the walls are not ballistically rated for full power ammunition, or in the case of one installation I’ve been stationed at, training area isn’t really a thing, but there is a 2 story shoothouse that’s about 100m from the hotel.

      • Ed says:

        They are not talking about SRTA, read the article.

        They are talking about training in/on open ranges that have distance limitations. If you have been following any of the post last 3yrs pertaining to the Army and DoD implementing a “new” near-peer machine gun round/platform then you would understand.

        FYI, this is the internet and my “character” on here is sarcastic, don’t be so serious, “why so serious”???

        • Mac679 says:

          Yes, I saw that part. Are you aware that there are installations that don’t have as much room as others?
          Note that it also says no modifications to the weapon, ie no special bolt that SRTA requires… That seems rather important to me—like maybe it’s intended to replace SRTA, seems to be filling the same role.

          • Ed says:

            You are arguing apples and oranges.

            The only place I can think of this ammo being relevant is during a SOUC or MOUT training. Which is only one venue in warfare. Land Warfare and open terrain is where the Army needs to focus if they want to shift to a more strategic near-peer conflict.

            Read the other replies on this thread if you’re still scratching your dome about why I posted my initial comment.

            So, per the pic that accompanied this article being a 240, seems disingenuous to train to your range instead of train to win the fight.
            If that doesn’t paint a better picture for you now you can always request a drawing with crayons if that fits your level of comprehension. I will also host a spelling bee in case some words were a bit unfamiliar.

            • Bill says:

              The intent of the round is to reduce the Max Range without reducing the Maximum effective range. IE, allow 240 Machine Gunners to train at 1200 m without creating a 4000m SDZ fan. There are multiple instillations where use of one range results in closing 3-4 others, reducing the installation’s capacity for training. If those 1200m ranges only requires a 2500m or 3000m SDZ fan we have opened up more training capability without any impact on training lethality.

              Did you train your 7.62 gunners to engage 3000m targets? I doubt it.

  5. CAP says:

    “We need new extended range ammunition because our soldiers aren’t capable of engaging targets at long distances.”

    “We need new reduced range ammunition for training because we train at such short distances.”

    – US Army

  6. Matt says:

    So by fins on the projectile does this mean that the Franklin armory reformation is viable now.

  7. Ray Forest says:

    Depending on cost and investment this has application that overrides the down sides I think. If the SDZ of the .50 range overlaps the m4 range then only one can operate. If we can fix this we can operate both and double training time. As for it being a “short” range ammo, I believe Ibread that the 7.62 rd has the goal of falling short at like 600-700 yds. Hardly short range. Think of what long range shooting means to the army now. For LMGs it’s under that.