Army looking for M16, M249, M4 replacements!

The Army has announced that it will have a competition this summer among arms manufacturers to find replacements for the M16, M4, and M249.

Unfortunately they are looking for weapons in 5.56mm.

Meanwhile the Army is considering .40 and .45 as options to 9mm for their next pistol. (wish they were looking at the .357 Sig also)

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-708424.php

.357 is too close to 9mm. The biggest problem with the 9 is it tends to go through unarmored targets and not go through body armor. Personally I think a .45 cal (11.??? mm) would be good. Not only do you have PROVEN stopping power, but if you want AP, all you have to do is sabot a steel/brass core and or teflon coat it. Maybe bump up the pressure to +P levels. The US military already has a gun in inventory designed to deal with that. Its the Mk23 SOCOM. Frankly all they need to do is start issuing USPs in .45 and I think the troops will be happy.

As for the rifle, I think if it does as advertized, the XCR would be perfect.

i like how in the artical they say that each company must submit the rifles, a saw, and a PISTOL. so basicly that limits the compitition to like, FN and HK. it would rock if the xcr could make it, but robinson -as far as i know- doesnt have any pistol on offer. this "contest" is so typicaly army that it makes me want to curl up and die.

Depends on what kind of "pistol" they are talking about. If they are talking about something like the Olympic Arms shorty AR15s then the XCR could be easily configured for that (they have an 11" barrel on the price list).

Personally I think maybe they are trying to get multiple submissions from each company...for instance, they may pick an HK pistol, a RA rifle, and an FN SAW...or some combination. Who knows that the buracraps are thinking.

.40 is good, but it doesn't penetrate body armor reliably. Thats one of the reasons that police departments field them. That way if they get thier gun taken away and get shot with it (a common occurance) a center mass hit probably won't kill them (if they are smart and wearing thier armor). A .45 may not penetrate, but chances are it will still knock them on thier @$$ and for almost 100 years it HAS been the "yard stick" most handgun rounds have been measured by. Yah, its not the fastest, yah its not the newest, but it gets the job done. One idea that has intrigued me is a "soft/hard target" round which would basically be a lead hollow point with a steel penetrator. In a soft target it would act alot like a standard HP, but when it hits body armor, the HP would strip away from the steel core and the core would punch through...the lead might possibly act like an adhoc lubricant (teflon coating) as well. Just a thought.

Solidpoint wrote: "How about we mass-produce a good weapon like the Russian T-34."

In a way, that's why I'd like to see the U.S. military adopt the 6.5 Grendel. Why not do it right the first time? If we had adopted the 6.8 SPC, though it's a good cartridge in and of itself, soon people would be asking for more range and penetration from it. With the 6.5 Grendel, if you want to load it light, you can. If you want to load it heavy, you can. The shorter case length relative to the OAL gives lots of room for that trial and error process you mentioned.

John

Hmm, ballistics don't pan out on the .45? If you say so...though I am sure there are many people out there (like the USMC for instance) that would tell you that lab data and real world effects are two different animals (The aformentioned USMC loves thier .45s with a "dinky" 7 round mag...I wonder why).

As for the composite...how about a centered tungsten "nail" with "wax" filler in a Barns-X type solid copper round (already in production and very kick @$$ from all reports).

One of the reasons I was looking at sabots (I know you don't like them, but they can be made to work or else the army wouldn't be using them for thier tank rounds, and the sub caliber SLAP ammo wouldn't be issued in .50 and 7.62) was for versitility. Imagine if you will, a rifle chambered for a straight case of around .44 caliber (same as the grendel). The basic three rounds that would be chambered would be a .44 cal "CQB" full bore round, a 6.5mm "general purpose" round, and finally a 5.56 or smaller tungstan "sniper/AP" flechette round. You would have multi caliber capabilities just by switching ammo.

This has been covered elswhere, by smarter individuals than I, but you have to admit, the idea is at least interesting.

I'm with the rest of you though. With the current technology, an AR type platform, with interchangeable feed mechinisms and configurations (like the COBB MCR or the RA XCR) could possibly fill two of the three niches that the army is looking at. The only problem I can see is the "SAW" configuration.
Damn belt feed.

If the DOD were a corporation, alot of the board members and higher management would be in deep doodoo for "missappropriation of funds" and possibly "criminal negligence" but because they are Generals, and not CEO's the get away with alot of $#!T. Alot of these guys need to quit padding thier pensions and get on the ball. We need more generals like Stormin' Norman. He at least was out there with his troops.

Complaining aside, had a brain storm (or cranial flatulance, you decide) earlier this evening. Baretta has this need CX4 "Storm" carbine out. I was kinda looking at the design and wondered what would happen if you shortened the barrel and put a sliding stock on it so that the over all dimensions were similar to a full sized handgun like a 1911 or maybe even a MK23. Basically replace the standard "pistol" with a pistol/carbine kinda like the MP7. I always liked that design, but I thought that its major flaw was the use of that dinky little 4.7mm "spoon tip" AP round. Rechamber the puppy for a standard pistol cartridge like .45 (or even .40 or 9mm if you like) and set it up to use the already manufactured "Hi-cap" mags for the USP. Even set up som extended mags (My USP .45 has 10 round "blocked" mags and now that the AWB is gone I could concievably get 12 round mags...thats only 8 short of that 4.7mm flush mag) so that you can use a 12 .45 cal flush mag for holtser carry, and then swap to the 20 or 30 round mag on the first reload. With the flip down forgrip, in line sliding stock and maybe a full auto/burst fire option, you would have a controllable, modernized MAC-10/11 as your standard sidearm.

And I would prefer the terminal ballistics of a burst of .45 cal +p Barnes-X or even +p hardball up against the latest crop of PDW rounds (5.7mmFN/4.7mmHK) any day. And if you are worried about penetration, switch over to KTW rounds or something. :D

Someone at my work decided to be a funny boy. My appologies for thier ludeness. I am not only embarassed, but pissed about it.

function available for such missteps...

Received the following tidbit in an e-mail today:

"THE ISSUE OF A HEAVIER CALIBER ROUND AND A BETTER SERVICE RIFLE IS STILL ALIVE IN THE [USMC]
- JUST DELAYED FOR MORE PREP. 2007 SHOULD BRING MORE INFO..."

Has anybody else heard anything in this regard?

Received the following tidbit in an e-mail today:

"THE ISSUE OF A HEAVIER CALIBER ROUND AND A BETTER SERVICE RIFLE IS STILL ALIVE IN THE [USMC]
- JUST DELAYED FOR MORE PREP. 2007 SHOULD BRING MORE INFO..."

Has anybody else heard anything in this regard?

That would be very good news. Based on the statistical analysis of pressure-safe load data Bill provided us it is my ferverent hope that the Israelis evaluate their new Tavor in a Grendelized 19-20" barrel. They would then have the best assault rifle on planet earth by quite a wide margin, could make their own ammo (IMI) and provide some critical field results for the USMC to evaluate.

As for the Army, the 5.56 NDI Carbine solicitation was canceled in June, and there has been no activity on the 5.56 NDI LMG solicitation.

It undoubtedly won't thrill most here, but today I received this feedback from another source:

"USMC is still testing the SCAR-L in 6.8mm and wants the caliber."

Hopefully the USMC will do an actual comparison and test in 6.5 Grendel as well - It just makes no sense that only 6.8 SPC would be tested prior to adopting a round.

...and I keep hearing that the USA will be going back to .45 instead of 9mm. :)

Hopefully the USMC will do an actual comparison and test in 6.5 Grendel as well - It just makes no sense that only 6.8 SPC would be tested prior to adopting a round.
It wouldn't be the first time that the military has done something like that.
...and I keep hearing that the USA will be going back to .45 instead of 9mm.
The Army announced that decision some time back. As I recall, SOCOM -- which also wanted a new handgun -- was to be in charge of developing the new .45 pistol for all branches.

Surprise! I heard today that SOCOM -- at the urging of Delta Force -- has decided it no longer wants to revert to .45 ACP, but will instead go with .40 Short & Weak! :eek:

The unconfirmed report also says that Delta has already gone ahead and acquired Glock 22 pistols.

What about the 6.5 MPC which SSK industries is pushing?

I haven't heard anything about the 6.5 MPC recently, but the Dept. of Homeland Security is reportedly interested in Reed Knight's 6x35mm round and its associated PDW.

I haven't heard anything about the 6.5 MPC recently, but the Dept. of Homeland Security is reportedly interested in Reed Knight's 6x35mm round and its associated PDW.



that makes sense from the department of bureaucratic boondoggles. :(

Putting everyone charged with the borders and such under one roof- Good

doing the way it was done- Not so good.

It undoubtedly won't thrill most here, but today I received this feedback from another source:

"USMC is still testing the SCAR-L in 6.8mm and wants the caliber."

Well, if the Corps adopts the 6.8 I'm sure SOCOM will be evaluating the Grendel in short order as SOCOM considers the USMC a bunch of roudy morons and no way are they going to get upstaged by the likes of the Corps. In addition, if the Corps really did adopt an alternative to the 5.56 it would kind of kick the door open for alternatives in general and that should be a very good thing. Over time there could be some good back-seeding too now that the Corps have been included in SOCOM under MARCOM.

In case anyone hasn't figured it out, I LOVE the Corps, but I do think they undervalue quality gear. You can only do so much with guts and skill and then you need firepower. Btw, to that end, the new EFSS 120mm mortar system came in at 1,400lbs. I think the one I speced for the PAV was 1,500. I hate to say I told you so, but ... uhhh... well... you know the tune too...

Well, if the Corps adopts the 6.8 I'm sure SOCOM will be evaluating the Grendel in short order...
Considering their traditional emphasis on marksmanship and long-range shooting, it seems like the Marines should also be looking very seriously at 6.5 Grendel.
I LOVE the Corps, but I do think they undervalue quality gear.
Why do you say that? They have led the way on a number of issues, for instance:

M16A2 rifle development
M16A4 rifle fielding
Use of ACOG sight
Adoption of combat uniform w/ superior desert camouflage pattern

It undoubtedly won't thrill most here, but today I received this feedback from another source:

"USMC is still testing the SCAR-L in 6.8mm and wants the caliber."

Stan, are you trying to bait me with this? ;)

I'd have to question how tied in your source is. It's conceivable that other sources could spread the unfounded rumor that the situation is the opposite as you describe. But that would be pure speculation.

Why don't we just wait and see what is officially announced, if there ever is a movement away from 5.56 NATO?

Do you think that the fact that the 6.5 Grendel can do everything the 6.8 SPC can do, but the 6.8 SPC can't do everything the 6.5 Grendel can do is lost on the military? This kind of short-sightedness is, of course, possible, but at this point I'd like to give them more credit than that.

John

Stan, are you trying to bait me with this?
Now, would I do something like that? ;)
I'd have to question how tied in your source is.
By all means, feel free to question it. I can't vouch for the validity of the report. I just passed it along in case others in the forum would find it of interest.
Why don't we just wait and see what is officially announced, if there ever is a movement away from 5.56 NATO?
That could be years in the future. What's wrong with discussing the latest rumors?

Tell me this, if my source had said that the "USMC is testing the SCAR-L in 6.5 Grendel and wants the caliber" would you have voiced this objection? :D
Do you think that the fact that the 6.5 Grendel can do everything the 6.8 SPC can do, but the 6.8 SPC can't do everything the 6.5 Grendel can do is lost on the military?
Some in the military are no doubt aware of 6.5 Grendel's capabilities. However, don't discount the possibility -- no, make that "probability" -- of personal prejudices becoming involved. The miltary doesn't always choose the better ammo option. A couple of historical cases in point:

1. Adoption of the underpowered, rimmed, .30 Krag round in the early 1890s, instead of a more capable, rimless cartridge like 7mm Mauser or 7.5mm Swiss.

2. Dropping the 6mm XM732 cartridge in favor of using a heavier bullet in 5.56mm NATO for the squad automatic weapon.

There are other examples, but I hope these two get the point across.

This kind of short-sightedness is, of course, possible, but at this point I'd like to give them more credit than that.
Never underestimate the ability of some in leadership positions to make bad decisions. A recent example is the XM8 carbine project. :rolleyes:

Do you think that the fact that the 6.5 Grendel can do everything the 6.8 SPC can do, but the 6.8 SPC can't do everything the 6.5 Grendel can do is lost on the military? This kind of short-sightedness is, of course, possible, but at this point I'd like to give them more credit than that.

John

Apparently you haven't been following the Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor ESAPI upgrade debate.

http://sftt.org/

Its "Not invented here" syndrome. Hell, look at the original M1 Garand prototype and the fact it was chambered for a round very similar to a 6.5/6.8 type projectile. The army could have gone with the two MARPAT camo patterns, but instead the went with the ACU type "multipurpose pattern" and vice versa. The Marines wanted the Stoner 63A, but got the M16 rammed down thier throats by the brass as well as the testers stacking the deck in the trials. They went so far to feed low power loads through the 63A that even the AR15/M16 would choke on. Looks like they are pulling the same thing by shooting the Dragon Skin armor in the soft spots around the hard armor (using x-rays to find the soft spots before the test) and not logging where the hits were. Also, the head tester is quality control on the Interceptor vest (as his day job). Anyone else smell something wrong with that picture?

Yah, I wouldn't put it past the politi...I mean brass to do the same thing with the 6.8 vs 6.5 debate.

Well, thats my two cents.

I have been following this loosely and it sure looks like the DragonSkin system is clearly superior. Unfortunately when you spend more time name-calling and doing character assassinations than carefully presenting the facts it makes the material pretty worthless for serious debate. I was hoping to find something on those links I could include in a letter to my Senator, but I'd look like a complete fool repeating any of that ranting jibberish. What was missing was any of the source documents so I could make up my own mind about what was going on.

Is there a more credible source for this debate? I'd like to throw my hat into the ring here as DragonSkin is a local company and deserves to win contracts if they have better products.

Solid, check over at defensereview.com. They have alot more data as well as vid of them pumping quite a few rounds into a vest on a test dummy with no penetrations. Admittedly that was unclassified testing with ball ammo, but its still impressive. Unfortunately most of the milspec testing is still classified.

Oh, and more appropriate to the thread, at the same site, thier current article is on the MGI "Hydra" modification of the M4/M16/AR15 platform. According to the literature, all it takes to change from 5.56 and to 6.5 or .50 Beo is a barrel, bolt, and magazine swap. The barrel swap uses standard AR barrels and gas tubes. You just swing out the levers to unlock, pull it, slide in the new barrels, and lock the levers back in place (cam lobes holding the barrel in place and seating the barrel extension in the right place, assuming your barrel extension is up to spec). It also allows the use of AK mags for 5.45 and 7.62 by allowing you to swap out the mag well.

Only thing I would add would be a provision to use piston carriers and barrels for a cleaner running system, but thats a personal preference. My current rifle is a Dissy, so obviously the residue build up doesn't bother me THAT much.

PS: check over on Professionalsoldiers.com to see just how professional Mr. Karl Masters is. Before the tests were even completed he was dissing, Dragon Skin in a public forum. Call me crazy and wacky, but the guy's dayjob is Interceptor quality assurance, and before the tests are even completed hes telling us how horrid the vest is going to perform. Sounds like hes REALLY unbiassed there.

Then again, I could be talking out my ass ;)

Oh, heres another link - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/20/16659/5015

I've been googling the issue on a weekly basis, and there wasn't much movement till last week when SFTT.org posted about the shady hit logging practices that were being reported.

Its "Not invented here" syndrome. Hell, look at the original M1 Garand prototype and the fact it was chambered for a round very similar to a 6.5/6.8 type projectile.
If you wish to be historically accurate, I think that is not quite true. As I understand it, John Garand had been working on a self-loading rifle in .30 caliber for a number of years before John Pedersen convinced the Army that the .276 Pedersen cartridge should replace the .30 Government round. Garand then redesigned for .276 caliber, but also did parallel development in .30 caliber, so that when the Chief of Staff nixed the new, smaller caliber on logistical grounds, Garand was ready with a .30 caliber rifle, while Pedersen's design couldn't be adapted to fire the more powerful ammo.
The army could have gone with the two MARPAT camo patterns, but instead the went with the ACU type "multipurpose pattern"...
Yeah, I think the Marines got it right. With the current technology, it seems to me that two basic patterns for standard issue are necessary: one for woodland and jungle, and another for desert. (Of course, a special issue, white oversuit for snow would be needed when appropriate.)

The Army's ACU is too green to blend against desert sand, and so pale that it contrasts against most foliage. Apparently, the Army liked the basic (digital) pattern of the MARPAT, but I suspect pride (as well as NIH) was a strong factor in attempting to go the Corps one better.

Strangely, it appears as if the Navy is beginning to use the ACU, as there have been quite a few photos on DoD web sites of Sailors wearing the Army uniform.

Interestingly, the Air Force has adopted its own unique camo uniform, different from both Army and Marines. For those who haven't seen it, it looks very much like the Vietnam-era "Tiger Stripes." Airman Battle Uniform:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/060317-F-0000R-001.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060317-F-0000R-001.jpg

One thing I found odd is that the Corps has copyrighted the MARPAT, legally preventing anyone from copying it without permission. I had thought that, being taxpayer-funded, anything government agencies produced was in the public domain. How the hell do the Marines get away with getting such legal restrictions? :confused:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/20/16659/5015

...better... I might be able to use this.

I am familiar with this cast of characters. AH in particular are literally a bunch of good-ole boys from Jacksonville, Florida. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=AH

The corporate headquarters is located between 3 golf courses in an area that has no industrial zoning at all. They not only pay themselves an obscene amount of money, they borrowed so much money by issuing bonds when the whole body armor issue was raised that iirc it would take 100 of the most profitable years they had, 2004, to pay back even the principal. Freed of needing to conserve profits to run the business they then proceeded to award themselves a huge % of the profits of the company for engineering a 9% drop in yoy profits. These guys are the worst sort. Indigenous carpet-baggers.

Before I give anyone the idea that all of the cast members are corrupt and incompetent I would like to point out that Ceradyne seems, as far as I can tell, to be the only company actually making ceramic armor. They supply the armor plates and disks to EVERYBODY. They also sell ceramic armor systems and slabs for other people to use to make their armor systems. They make the engine parts that make possible the high efficiency diesel engines used throughout Europe too. AFAICT, they are the only one actually making anything. They have a real R&D department, they make real products, they have been in business long before the body armor issue arose and there is every reason to believe they will be a strong going concern long after the likes of AH are history. Everybody else is just running sewing machines or gluing stuff to the floors of helicopters and such. The DragonSkin people are the only ones that seem to have added anything to Ceradyn's products by their innovative use of disk geometry.

It would be really great for morale if the guys in the field woke up one morning and found out we taxpayers had raised enough hell over procurement practices that they actually started getting some good reliable gear. It seems the least we can do in return for keeping us safe.

Glad I could help Solid.

I think we are on the same page on this issue.

SNIP--
1. Adoption of the underpowered, rimmed, .30 Krag round in the early 1890s, instead of a more capable, rimless cartridge like 7mm Mauser or 7.5mm Swiss.

2. Dropping the 6mm XM732 cartridge in favor of using a heavier bullet in 5.56mm NATO for the squad automatic weapon.

There are other examples, but I hope these two get the point across.


Never underestimate the ability of some in leadership positions to make bad decisions. A recent example is the XM8 carbine project. :rolleyes:


For a basically .30 caliber, the 7.5mm Swiss looks damned modern even today. Either it or the 7.65 Argentine(?) would have allowed us to jump right past the .30-06 to effectively the 7.62. :)

though if it was my choice, and I knew what the future would hold, I would have tried to have the US adopt the SMLE with a.308 bore. Converting it to a rimless is obviously possible, see the Ishapore rifles, and the .303 imo would do anything the .30-40 would do.

It is my considered opinion that the SMLE was the best bolt action BATTLE rifle ever fielded. It would probably not have taken too much to adapt it to a true detachable box magazine instead of stripper clips, but either way...

Then I would have made them concentrate on a semi then select fire rifle in something like .250-3000 or the rimless version of the 6mm Lee-Navy with a spitzer bullet, about 100-110 grain. the 6.5x55 would have been another option. Hmm, maybe a rimless conversion of the 6.5x55 like the Ishapore rifles? IIRC it was a 1893 cartridge...

:D

the 6mm SAW would also have somewhat complicated the logistics. I don't believe it was a good candidate for conversion of the M-16, due to overall length, was it? If so, it would have been a better solution. It used a 105 gr bullet at about 2500fps, didn't it? I would have thought another 100-200 fps would have given a lot better long range performance. shrug

Apparently you haven't been following the Dragon Skin vs. Interceptor ESAPI upgrade debate.

http://sftt.org/

Its "Not invented here" syndrome. Hell, look at the original M1 Garand prototype and the fact it was chambered for a round very similar to a 6.5/6.8 type projectile. The army could have gone with the two MARPAT camo patterns, but instead the went with the ACU type "multipurpose pattern" and vice versa. The Marines wanted the Stoner 63A, but got the M16 rammed down thier throats by the brass as well as the testers stacking the deck in the trials. They went so far to feed low power loads through the 63A that even the AR15/M16 would choke on. Looks like they are pulling the same thing by shooting the Dragon Skin armor in the soft spots around the hard armor (using x-rays to find the soft spots before the test) and not logging where the hits were. Also, the head tester is quality control on the Interceptor vest (as his day job). Anyone else smell something wrong with that picture?

Yah, I wouldn't put it past the politi...I mean brass to do the same thing with the 6.8 vs 6.5 debate.

Well, thats my two cents.


I hadn't read that the Marines wanted the Stoner 63A. Any cites? I know the special forces used it somewhat, but the whole system was iirc a bit too heavy and expensive as it was built.

Heck, though I still would like to kick Macarthur for killing the .276 PEderson (among other things) I think that Hatchers preference for a 120- 125 grain ".256" (actually a .264 I have been told) was probably better.

I tend to believe that the postwar British EM-1 and EM-2 in .280 were at least as big a boo-boo. They would IMO have been superb solutions.
Either way, I doubt we would EVER have gone to as small a cartridge as the 5.56mm.

For a basically .30 caliber, the 7.5mm Swiss looks damned modern even today. Either it or the 7.65 Argentine(?) would have allowed us to jump right past the .30-06 to effectively the 7.62.
Quite right. The 7.65x53 Mauser, especially -- because of its smaller case dimensions -- would've enabled the U.S. Armed Forces to have a 7.62 NATO-equivalent cartridge 50 years before the 7.62x51 was adopted! :o
though if it was my choice, and I knew what the future would hold, I would have tried to have the US adopt the SMLE with a.308 bore. Converting it to a rimless is obviously possible... It is my considered opinion that the SMLE was the best bolt action BATTLE rifle ever fielded.
Concur.
It would probably not have taken too much to adapt it to a true detachable box magazine instead of stripper clips...
I thought it had a true detachable box magazine. :confused: The early versions of the Lee-Enfield did not have the ability to be loaded via stripper clips. That feature was only added after encountering clip-loaded Mauser rifles in the Boer War.
Then I would have made them concentrate on a semi then select fire rifle in something like .250-3000 or the rimless version of the 6mm Lee-Navy with a spitzer bullet, about 100-110 grain.
Yeah, some time ago I had the same thought. The 6mm Navy, loaded with modern powder and the 105gr bullet made for the 6mm SAW cartridge, would've given "interesting" performance.
the 6.5x55 would have been another option.
I kinda like the 6.5x54 Mauser sporting round, for its smaller case size...although the 6.5 Swede would offer better performance.
the 6mm SAW would also have somewhat complicated the logistics.
True, but that doesn't appear to be as much of a problem as some have postulated. Consider this: Ammo for the M249 LMG is nearly always fired from 100-rd or 200-rd belts that can't be used in M16 rifles. Also, the M249 does not function reliably when using magazines made for M16 rifles.

While there is a theoretical advantage to having both weapons chambered for the same cartridge, how often does that translate to a practical advantage in the field? In order to make use of it, the rifleman would have to pull rounds from M249 belts and insert them, one at a time, into his magazines. Conversely, the SAW gunner would have to remove rounds from M16 mags and/or stripper clips, collect links from where they had been scattered on the ground, and insert the rounds, one at a time, into the salvaged links.

My guess is that this rarely, if ever, happens in modern combat. Therefore, since the belted ammo is dedicated to the SAW, and not intended to be used in the infantry rifle, using a different caliber would be of no practical concern.
I don't believe it was a good candidate for conversion of the M-16, due to overall length, was it?
You're correct. However, it appears as if the 6mm SAW round would not have had the deficiencies noted in regard to 5.56mm performance, when fired from the LMG. The increased capability of the 6mm cartridge could conceiveably have led to "stretching" the M16 receiver, or adoption of a new 6mm rifle, if a common caliber was really considered important.
It used a 105 gr bullet at about 2500fps, didn't it?
Roger.
I would have thought another 100-200 fps would have given a lot better long range performance.
Sure, but to do so it would've been necessary to either reduce bullet weight, or increase case size.

SMLE has a Detachable box, but IIRC
they are not interchangeable, swapping them often leads to malfunctions.

Mine are NOT "battlefield easy" to remove or install,

and they were never fielded that way, so no one had the multiple mags needed.

SMLE has a Detachable box, but IIRC
they are not interchangeable, swapping them often leads to malfunctions.

and they were never fielded that way, so no one had the multiple mags needed.
Leave it to the Brits to screw up a good idea. Oops -- sorry, Bill. :D

IIRC the quote that the marines were interested in the Stoner came from Shotgun News. I will see if I have the article still. One of the reasons it got killed was that some pencil necked bean counter envisioned every Marine begging, borrowing, or stealing the parts to change his AR configuration into a short belt fed carbine or MG, and that just wouldn't do. You HAVE to have some guys with MGs and most guys with ARs. Thats simply how its done :rolleyes:

Yes I know there are reasons to minimize LMG/SAW proliferation, that was not my point.

IIRC the quote that the marines were interested in the Stoner came from Shotgun News. I will see if I have the article still. One of the reasons it got killed was that some pencil necked bean counter envisioned every Marine begging, borrowing, or stealing the parts to change his AR configuration into a short belt fed carbine or MG, and that just wouldn't do. You HAVE to have some guys with MGs and most guys with ARs. Thats simply how its done :rolleyes:

Yes I know there are reasons to minimize LMG/SAW proliferation, that was not my point.

There's a blurb on this in The Black Rifle. IIRC, someone at Gauge Cadillac offered a job to a well-connected Marine officer who was about to retire. He got the Stoner System in front of the Marines, who liked it. You have to remember all this happened not too long after one controversial rifle (the M14) was replaced by another (the M16) shortly after the first was adopted. The M16 itself was only supposed to be a stopgap until the USA perfected the SPIW, so it's not surprising that the fiscal decision makers decided not to pursue a separate 5.56 system for the Marines.

Don't forget that they also scuttled the reliability tests. I undersand the bean counters wanted a "common rifle" and that the timing on the stoner was bad, but the fact they used rounds that wouldn't even make the AR cycle reliably and counted that against the stoner system is just like x-raying a certain vest an shooting around the class IV armor panels into the class IIIa sections of the vest with class IV AP ammo and then counting those as penetrations of the class IV armor.

Sorry, I just figure if you are going to test something, test it right and then be honest about the reasons you are not adopting it.

Based on everything I've read, bogus/corrupt small-arms tests are all too common :(

Curtis Lemay and the South Vietnamese Army were the two big backers of the M16. With all of the concealment the jungle offers a heavy battle rifle doesn't help much because ranges are so short. What helps more is the ability to saturate and area where "movement" is detected but the exact location of the enemy cannot be determined. This, the light ammo and light weight of the rifle made what is now referred to as LRIP rifles wildly popular with South Vietnamese troops.

Lemay, a hunter, was given an M16 for his personal use (like that would be allowed today) at a time when the USAF was looking for a PDW and I suppose, something to give the guards who guarded the airbases as over half of all the AirForce personnel are guards.

StanC is right that the USMC with their emphisis on long-range marksmanship should be interested in the Grendel over the 6.8SPC and I would be hugely dissappointed in the Corps if they chose something that is clearly so inferior at range as the 6.8SPC. I also think the Corps would benefit more than any other branch of the military from a unified cartridge as they are first and foremost an expeditionary force that needs to deploy quickly and simplify logistics. With proper load development the Grendel will do an awful lot of things very, very well.

Btw, in reviewing all of the load data I am very impressed with the SMK 107. It has a great BC for its weight, makes good velocity even from short barrels and has a great balance of fragmentation and penetration. It makes as much velocity from an M4 14.5" barrel as the 144FMJBT does from a 28" barrel and while not quite as good a BC as the heavier 6.5 SMKs it still has a very respectable .430 BC which is better than the 5.56 M262 77 gr, 7.62 M80 ball and 6.8SPC 115gr Sierra listed at .324. (The ballistics table in the FAQs section needs to be updated I guess)

Hmm . . . looks like the Stoner 63 (http://home.houston.rr.com/stoner63a/) was ahead of its time. It might be just the ticket for the requirements underlying this thread. A grendelized version would be very versatile.

The complete Stoner 63 weapons system was demonstrated to the Marines in August of 1963. L Company 3rd 1st Marines (Capt. Joseph Gibbs Commanding) tested the Stoner in Vietnam for approximately six months. The Marines were impressed with the light machine gun and rifle configurations. The Marines use Army Material Command for logistical support and therefore were selected to perform trials on the Stoner 63. Unfortunately the Army Material Command was prejudiced against previous Stoner designs and they were already determined to adopt the Rodman bull pup SAW using the 6mm XM732 cartridge. The tests were conducted at the Rodman Lab test facilities and the project manager for the Stoner 63 was also involved with the Rodman project. The Stoner 63 failed the test due to having unacceptably high number of stoppages and failures. This was attributed to Army Material Command imposing unrealistic ammunition requirements that exhibited large variations in gas port pressure. After the failed test, Cadillac Gage was requested to submit the Stoner 63 in the 6mm XM732 round but they declined.

The Stoner 63 went to Vietnam while barely past the prototype stage. Even at this early developmental stage the SEALs found it to be a extremely useful weapon in combat. Before the Army Material Command could complete their prejudiced test, the U.S. Marines, Army, and Air Force submitted recommend changes to the Stoner 63 system. A total of 2,400 Stoner 63s had been manufactured up until this point. The modifications were implemented in August of 1966 and the weapon system was redesignated as the Stoner 63A. The Stoner 63A now limited issue to the SEALs was designated as the XM23 for the carbine, XM22E1 for the rifle and XM207 (later the XM207E1 then Mk23 Mod. 0) for the light machine gun.

Hmm . . . looks like the Stoner 63 was ahead of its time. It might be just the ticket for the requirements underlying this thread.
Or it might not. Reportedly, the Stoner needed a lot of maintenance attention in order to function reliably.
SEAL operators...treated them with the care one lavishes on thoroughbred racing cars such as a Ferrari. [The Stoner 63] had a lot of small parts and required a lot of care in order to perform. Later operators of the XM-207 series [tested and evaluated by the Army] had malfunctions because they did not maintain their Stoners with the zeal the SEALs did with theirs.
www.mst2-vietnam.info/Stoner_ordnance_notes/STONER_63-63A.htm

http://home.houston.rr.com/stoner63a/stonerpics/disassembly.jpg

Not to get totally off topic, but someone might want to contact Mr. Crane over at defensereview.com on his scenario involving the MGI Hydra platform and suggest a simplified idea. Use the 6.5 Grendel in place of the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO for the American ammo side of the equation, and then do a SIMPLE BARREL SWAP and magwell swap to convert to 7.62x39 as it and the grendel use the SAME CASE HEAD DIMENSIONS.

Simplifies the logistics down to one common round (gee, where have we heard that before), bolt assembly and receiver set, with a spare barrel and magwell for converting over to "captured ammo". Stick a piston system in the equation for reliability and I would be a very happy camper.

Article in question: http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=924

. . . then do a SIMPLE BARREL SWAP and magwell swap to convert to 7.62x39 as it and the grendel use the SAME CASE HEAD DIMENSIONS

Damn, Coolhand, good thinking! I'm going to pick up that special red phone on my desk and dial SOCOM with that idea! ;)

Seriously: Of course! So obvious! Would it be a crime if our forces had a compact cartridge launching twice the bullet mass of 5.56 NATO and with slightly superior ballistics to 7.62 NATO, all in a compact AR platform? :mad:

John

Damn, Coolhand, good thinking! I'm going to pick up that special red phone on my desk and dial SOCOM...
Somebody should call them, if they aren't already taking a good look at the concept.
Would it be a crime if our forces had a compact cartridge launching twice the bullet mass of 5.56 NATO and with slightly superior ballistics to 7.62 NATO, all in a compact AR platform?
Yes. No. Maybe. I don't know. (Waddaya mean, I'm indecisive?) :p

Stan,

I'm sure I read 2580 fps from an 18" barrel for the 6mm S.A.W. somewhere, am I wrong ?

Solid,

I noticed a load for the 108 grain Lapua Scenar that was 30 fps faster than the 107 SMK from the 24" barrel - if that translates down in barrel length by similar degrees to the SMK, wouldn't it be the better choice, given that the Scenar has a B.C. of .478 ?

I was just talking about pestering the people whomight listen like David Crane over at Defense Review, and guys like him.

You have the "Red Phone"....DUDE! That rocks! :p

Hell, if I had the money, I would get the MGI set in 5.56/6.5/7.62x39 and see just how long it would take to pull off a conversion in the latter two.

Why get the 5.56 bolt head, and barrel? Plinking ammo and testing repeatable POA POI between the three calibers, with three different barrels, two different bolt heads, and two different mag wells with the same sights.

Now all I need is about 3 grand for everything I want out of it...anyone have a winning lotto ticket they wanna share?

I'd be amazed if the US military adopts an intemediate (between 5.56 and 7.62mm) caliber for general issue. We might see something (probably 6.8 SPC, because 6.5G is NIH) for SOCOM, but I have my doubts about even that.

My hope is that the military will consider an intermediate caliber for the next generation (caseless or cased-telescoped) ammunition currently being researched. Hopefully, the prototypes are being made in 5.56 for convenience (off-the-shelf bullets). Unfortunately, the history of small-arms development demonstrates that logistical convenience (using the current components and machinery) all too often trumps using the best caliber... :(

Is it just me, or does the proposal to replace the M4, M16 and SAW and provide a compact PDW look exactly like the promotional material for the XM8?

....snip...
I noticed a load for the 108 grain Lapua Scenar that was 30 fps faster than the 107 SMK from the 24" barrel - if that translates down in barrel length by similar degrees to the SMK, wouldn't it be the better choice, given that the Scenar has a B.C. of .478 ?

Jon,

Thanks, I'll look at it again, but there were several cases where I had 2-3 different ways to estimate a data point and usually I chose the most conservative number in those cases. Not having the table in front of me at the moment I think you may be referring to a moly coated 108gr bullet which would not be a fair comparison. In many cases I actually graphed several points and looked at the results to see if the graph looked reasonable or looked like it belonged to a different chart entirely.

Two such cases were the 144FMJBT load on the first chart and an 85gr SMK number I wanted to use from Griz but didn't. The 144gr I have as 2440, but I think that is too fast. I think the real number is likely somewhere between 2385 and 2400, the latter being most likely. The 85gr SMK at 3,100fps is just way off the least-squares regression line even after the line gets moved dramatically with the inclusion of that data. When you look at the chart it just doesn't group nice and close to the line, and is Waaaay off the TNT 90's performance only 5gr away. Since Griz had no way of knowing what pressure he was generating it seemed pretty clear to me that he was significantly above 49,000psi.

We know there are hot loads that will make the 6.8SPC zoom too, but they aren't safe loads. For the Wiki site I'd rather go with pressure tested loads because most people who know enough to study the data will understand that those loads are "safe" and hotter loads can be had by reloading with some manageable risk. Without the constraint of consistent pressure levels the data would just be all over the place and really not represent anything - which I'm pretty sure you get and wasn't your point I'm guessing.

This discussion really needs to go on the Wiki thread, but I am going to post the MV as a function of bullet weight and MV as a function of barrel length because any dolt with a browser can get all of the ballistics tables he wants once he has MV of the bullet - nothing special or valuable or unique about such a chart. What he can't get just anywhere are the effects of bullet weight and barrel length on MV and definitely not an indication of how the two trade off against each other.

Stan,

I'm sure I read 2580 fps from an 18" barrel for the 6mm S.A.W. somewhere, am I wrong ?
All I can say is that 2500 fps is the only figure I've ever seen. (Well, I think I may have seen one source that showed 2510 fps.) :o

I'd be amazed if the US military adopts an intemediate (between 5.56 and 7.62mm) caliber for general issue.
So would I.
My hope is that the military will consider an intermediate caliber for the next generation (caseless or cased-telescoped) ammunition currently being researched.
Oh, you're such a dreamer. ;)
Unfortunately, the history of small-arms development demonstrates that logistical convenience (using the current components and machinery) all too often trumps using the best caliber...
Yup. That's why, as some have previously pointed out, we can expect 5.56 and 7.62 NATO to remain in service for some time to come.
Is it just me, or does the proposal to replace the M4, M16 and SAW and provide a compact PDW look exactly like the promotional material for the XM8?
No, it's not just you. I think the Army likes the XM8 concept, it's just that the HK version didn't perform acceptably in testing, so they're checking if other companies can offer a "family of weapons" that does work.

No, it's not just you. I think the Army likes the XM8 concept, it's just that the HK version didn't perform acceptably in testing, so they're checking if other companies can offer a "family of weapons" that does work.

I hope they realize that a "standard carbine" with a 12.5" barrel isn't going to perform acceptably with any 5.56x45 ammo except, perhaps, Mk262...

I hope they realize that a "standard carbine" with a 12.5" barrel isn't going to perform acceptably with any 5.56x45 ammo except, perhaps, Mk262...
They knew that, but chose to ignore it because it was necessary to go with a 12.5-inch barrel in order to keep the XM8's overall length from exceeding that of the M4 carbine.

If that isn't bad enough, consider the "compact carbine" (PDW) version has a mere 9-inch barrel! :rolleyes:

There is probably nothing wrong with a shortbarreled weapon, as long as you have proper ammunition for it.

But: It should be adopted alongside a longer-barreled weapon like an IAR in a ratio between 1:1 to 3:1, in order to increase the practical range of engagement.

Still, a quick in-the-field rebarreling option would probably not be a bad thing, especially if the IARs can accept the same barrels, thereby reducing the total load of the squad, compared to if everybody has to carry their own extra barrel...

Is it just me, or does the proposal to replace the M4, M16 and SAW and provide a compact PDW look exactly like the promotional material for the XM8?

That died last year on Halloween.

There were follow-up pre-solicitation notices for NDI/COTS 5.56mm carbines and LMGs. However, the carbine solicitation was also cancelled around June of this year, and there has been no activity on the LMG side.

The Marines were impressed with the light machine gun and rifle configurations. The Marines use Army Material Command for logistical support and therefore were selected to perform trials on the Stoner 63. Unfortunately the Army Material Command was prejudiced against previous Stoner designs and they were already determined to adopt the Rodman bull pup SAW using the 6mm XM732 cartridge. The tests were conducted at the Rodman Lab test facilities and the project manager for the Stoner 63 was also involved with the Rodman project. The Stoner 63 failed the test due to having unacceptably high number of stoppages and failures. This was attributed to Army Material Command imposing unrealistic ammunition requirements that exhibited large variations in gas port pressure.

This is derived from an old SOF article by Peter Kokalis, but it is probably incorrect. Kokalis appears to be confusing the SAWS (Small Arms Weapon System) trials of the early/mid-60s with the SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) trials of the early '70. The 6mm SAW cartridge and the Rodman SAW prototype most likely didn't even exist at the time of the SAWS trials. Moreover, the SAWS trials evaluated rifles, carbines, "SMG", HBAR, and LMG candidates from the Colt CAR-15 family and the Stoner 63 family, along with the ArmaLite AR-18, and the HK33 (as the H&R T223.) The trials were not held solely by the AMC; other major commands (Infantry, Armor, and Aviation) ran their own tests. You can download the Infantry Board and Armor Board SAWS reports at STINET. (The Armor Board report's citation and abstract is mislabeled as being the Aviation Board's. However, the Aviation Board's report is only available as a citation and abstract.)

Let's float this as an idea for a stop-gap Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR): What about a 6.5 Grendel with a 20" or 24" barrel, a bipod, an ACOG, 26-round magazines, and an M16A2 full-auto lower?

Depending on your operator, whether he's a marksman or a gunner, you've got a semi-auto DMR or a full-auto IAR, all in the same gun! :D

You get slightly better external ballistics than even 7.62 NATO, and I'm willing to bet a 65G AP round could be developed to give great penetration.

This would be just begging for Afghanistan deployment by Special Forces! Do you want to pick off a Taliban mortar crew at 800 yards, or suppress the whole pit with a full-auto burst? Do you want to nail the driver of a Toyota pickup, or hose down the whole thing? A 65G DMR/IAR would bring a whole new capability to the fight.

John

P.S. Looks like my post crossed Daniel's latest in the mail, and it sounds like this concept has already been considered. What were the pros and cons? (Although they didn't have Grendel's capabilities!)

Use an MGI upper, that way you get quick change barrels as well (a requirement for a sustained fire weapon).

Let's float this as an idea for a stop-gap Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR): What about a 6.5 Grendel with a 20" or 24" barrel, a bipod, an ACOG, 26-round magazines, and an M16A2 full-auto lower?


I was re-reading Rock In A Hard Place (Collector's Grade Publications BAR book) and was thinking about the potential of a BAR scaled down to .65 Grendel. It would be especially cool if it took advantage of modern materials (e,g, Ti receiver and internals and a heavy carbon wrapped barrel). Of course an MGI QCB upper with a 6.5 bolt and barrel on an M16A2 lower would be MUCH easier to implement.

The Stoner-63 may have been the ultimate infantry weapon on paper, and perhaps even in practice too, even though it is said that it had some reliability problems. If there should be any reason for problems when compared to other rifles, it could be because the receiver and the bolt of the gun was supposed to handle every different configuration... In other words, it may have been over-engineered.

To overcome this, it would be practical to use dedicated receivers and bolts for the different roles, and make barrels interchangeable between the different designs.

Only other things I would add to the "quick fix" Grendel IAR would be a piston for lack of fouling, and reciever heat reduction, and a Grendelized Beta-C magazine for sustained fire capacity.

I think the POF design piston on the MGI upper would work for that.

Only other things I would add to the "quick fix" Grendel IAR would be a piston for lack of fouling, and reciever heat reduction, and a Grendelized Beta-C magazine for sustained fire capacity.

I think the POF design piston on the MGI upper would work for that.

I am still not convinced about those Beta-C-mags...

I would simply use a top-feeding receiver with a 40rd mag... (surprise, surprise :eek: )

And have some Grendelized 90rd mags (MGI) for static duty.

Piston is good, but IMO not strictly necessary.

What is most important is to slow the ROF, and minimize felt recoil.

I belive the AR platform reduces the recoil (and more importantly muzzle deviation) by its linear design (barrel, bolt and return spring all on the same axis). As for Rate reduction, I think they have done a good job with rate reducers already (again, in the stock AR configs).

As to the piston, I am less concearned with fouling than I am heat in the reciever. dont want your SAW/LMG overheating from all that hot gas going back into the mech.

The original Beta C was a reliable platform, unfortunately Beta changed the materials in the design and that made it no longer a self lubricating design (poly vs. the high temp nylon of the original design) and making the magwell stack wider (poly vs. steel/aluminum) adding to compatability issues. I only used the Beta-C as an example because it is the best known 100 rd AR mag at this time. A Grendel version of the 40rd AR mag or the 90 rd snail drum (or the high cap calico mags supposed to be in the works) would also be acceptable. I also don't have a problem with a Bren style rig. I don't think the US military would go for it though. They like to keep their ergos somewhat the same and seem to be enamored of the AR platform's configuration.

Just a side note for Solid and anyone else interested in the Dragon Skin issue, they not only passed NIJ level III testing, but since they are the only flexable hard armor out there, the NIJ based the new standard for Level III flexible hard armor on the test data gleaned from testing Dragon Skin SOV2000 vests.

http://defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=925

Hmmm, some chap called Anthony G. Williams over at quarry.nildram reckons that the 6mm S.A.W. did 2520 fps . . . but what does he know ? :rolleyes:

( Before I get flamed - I do know that this gentleman co-wrote Assault Rifle with Maxim Popenker and is considered an authority in these matters :D ).

Only other things I would add to the "quick fix" Grendel IAR would be a piston for lack of fouling, and reciever heat reduction, and a Grendelized Beta-C magazine for sustained fire capacity.

I think the POF design piston on the MGI upper would work for that.

IIRC, both a piston upper and a belt feed system are in the works at MGI.

...it could be because the receiver and the bolt of the [Stoner 63] was supposed to handle every different configuration... In other words, it may have been over-engineered.

To overcome this, it would be practical to use dedicated receivers and bolts for the different roles, and make barrels interchangeable between the different designs.

I agree - that would also make it easier to facilitate belt feed in the SAW/LMG version.


P.S. Thanks for the info./corrections Daniel W! :)

As to the piston, I am less concearned with fouling than I am heat in the reciever. dont want your SAW/LMG overheating from all that hot gas going back into the mech.

Just a side note for Solid and anyone else interested in the Dragon Skin issue, they not only passed NIJ level III testing, but since they are the only flexable hard armor out there, the NIJ based the new standard for Level III flexible hard armor on the test data gleaned from testing Dragon Skin SOV2000 vests.



It would make more sense to address the cooling issue with measures that cool the receiver - like the finned barrel nut.

Great news on the DragonSkin! I expect their design for the PAV's armor system will be equally innovative and impressive.

Hmmm, some chap called Anthony G. Williams over at quarry.nildram reckons that the 6mm S.A.W. did 2520 fps . . .

( Before I get flamed - I do know that this gentleman co-wrote Assault Rifle with Maxim Popenker and is considered an authority in these matters ).
I certainly wouldn't flame you over a difference of 10-20 fps, bigjon, especially since lot to lot variations can be that much. If it matters to you, here are what my sources say:

Feb 1977 American Rifleman -- 2500 fps
Frank Hackley* -------------- 2510 fps
Cartridges of the World ------ 2520 fps

*Co-author of History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition

It would make more sense to address the cooling issue with measures that cool the receiver - like the finned barrel nut.

One idea I've had along those lines is something like a Tactical Solutions Pac-Lite Upper (http://www.tacticalsol.com/products/PAC-LITEs.htm). Picture a truely monolithic billet 7076 T6 upper with the steel barrel forming a "liner" in the front half. Picatinny rails at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock would double as cooling fins. Obviously, you'd have to accomodate a piston and operating rod or gas tube somewere (typically 12 o'clock) as well.

IIRC, Aluminum conducts heat much better than steel, so intuitively, it seems like such construction would offer many of the benefits of ABS's carbon wrapped barrels (barrel stiffness and heat transmission) at a lower cost. It might not be good enough for a true sustained-fire role, but it might get you the desired 45 rpm effective rate in some of the recent requirements.

Hmmm, some chap called Anthony G. Williams over at quarry.nildram reckons that the 6mm S.A.W. did 2520 fps . . . but what does he know ? :rolleyes:

( Before I get flamed - I do know that this gentleman co-wrote Assault Rifle with Maxim Popenker and is considered an authority in these matters :D ).

Tony is also co-editor of Jane's Ammunition Handbook.

I certainly wouldn't flame you over a difference of 10-20 fps, bigjon, especially since lot to lot variations can be that much. If it matters to you, here are what my sources say:

Feb 1977 American Rifleman -- 2500 fps
Frank Hackley* -------------- 2510 fps
Cartridges of the World ------ 2520 fps

*Co-author of History of Modern U.S. Military Small Arms Ammunition

Are Hackley and Woodin ever going to finish Volume 3 of the title listed above? It would certainly make for great reading with the various SALVO, SCHV, SPIW, and SAW experimental cartridges.

Are Hackley and Woodin ever going to finish Volume 3 of the title listed above?
That's a good question. Two years ago, Frank told me that "Vol. III is years away from publication." I know that he and Bill get together every so often to work on it, but it's a very big project, so it's anyone's guess as to when it'll be published. :o

Stan,

LOL, I didn't think anyone would flame me over the 10-20 fps, but I was worried that if I left that post at:

Originally posted by ME

Hmmm, some chap called Anthony G. Williams over at quarry.nildram reckons that the 6mm S.A.W. did 2520 fps . . . but what does he know ?

. . . then people might not realise that I was joking ( about what Mr Williams knows ).

I just find it strange that I should remember such a specific set of figures ( 2580 fps from an 18" barrel - I wonder what that was ???? :confused: ).

P.s. Stan, you didn't think I was questioning your knowledge over 20 fps did you ? That's why I said " Am I wrong ? " in my first post. I wasn't saying you were wrong because Mr Williams had it 20 fps faster, but since You and Anthony G. Williams were only 20 fps different, I KNEW I was WRONG.

I just find it strange that I should remember such a specific set of figures ( 2580 fps from an 18" barrel - I wonder what that was ???? ).
I dunno. Velocity of 6.5 Grendel, maybe? :D
P.s. Stan, you didn't think I was questioning your knowledge over 20 fps did you ?
To be honest, I wasn't sure. That's why I went into my reference material so that I could cite sources. When I first wrote "2500 fps" I was going on memory alone, and (obviously) did not remember that one source showed 2520 fps.

Hmmm, some chap called Anthony G. Williams over at quarry.nildram reckons that the 6mm S.A.W. did 2520 fps . . . but what does he know ? :rolleyes:

( Before I get flamed - I do know that this gentleman co-wrote Assault Rifle with Maxim Popenker and is considered an authority in these matters :D ).

Stan,

I just re-read this. I knew something wasn't right by your reply and I now realise how wrongly the above could be taken. It could be taken that I am holding him up as some great authority and you as a know-nothing. That was certainly not my intent and I apologise. As far as I'm concerned, Stan, your credentials need no reiteration. I was only citing Mr. Williams to show that you were correct.

I should have added something like this:

" Well, since both of you have the M.V. at least 60fps less than me, I guess I'm wrong "

Forget about the 20 fps - I agree, lot to lot variations probably account for that.

I think the internet is a great communications system, but sometimes we forget that the tone of our thoughts does not carry and my above attempt at self - effacing humour could be badly misread. I am sorry, Stan :o

Heck, bigjon, there's absolutely no need to apologize. I took no offense. Now, if you had said something like, "Stan, you're a stupid *&@#&%ing X$#%+@," maybe then an apology would be in order. ;) :D

...snip... "Stan, you're a stupid *&@#&%ing X$#%+@," maybe then an apology would be in order. ;) :D

Well, that would just be wrong. Stan, I think you're a very smart *&@#&%ing X$#%+@! :D ... at least when you're making an especially irritating point - usually one that should be made.

Thanks, Stan :)

I always say that if you respect someone and you think you may have offended them, it is worth taking the time to make a proper apology, even if it isn't necessary.

New guy here.....former Marine Machine Gunner 94-98, and now a cop.

The problem is simple to me. We have a huge stockpile of 7.62x51 rounds. We know everything there is to know about 7.62x51....don't we? And to keep it simple we stick with an AR type weapon, either Armalite or DPMS Ap4 (I like the Ap4).

Marines on the ground want crap that works and is simple! We don't run around talking ballistics. We notice simple things like "bigger club kill quicker!"

So Marines running around with Ap4's would be unstoppable.

Pistol wise...I can't believe anything would be better and more Marine Proof than the ugly Glock. They're damn near indestructible and idiot proof. Issue it in .45. I have shot the H&K USP .45 alot. Don't like it.

Now you have your 240G and Ap4's sharing ammo in an emergency. You have one shot stops instead of two to the body and one to the head.

Marines are killers, simple ones. We want to shoot once and problem solved.

7.62x51 would make everyone be better rifleman. The heavier recoil would stop the spray and pray of the Nintendo generation.

I love this 6.5 thing, and hope to have one soon. But it's not Zombie proof. When the shit hits the fan, I can't go to Wal-mart and resupply.

Just my 2 cents. We have to fight with the brick they issue us. I have to carry a SigPro .40 on duty....do I like it NO!

Simple is better!

Love the site...you guys know alot!!!

Stay Safe!

heat, have you seen MGI Military's quick change barrel upper and modular lower receiver with interchangeable mag wells? LINK (http://www.mgimilitary.com/product.htm) It doesn't sound as simple as it is, but IF the M14 mag well and 7.62x51 bolt and barrels works as advertised it would be great for Marines, IMO.

You would have one platform with minimal changes in training (same fire controls and a very similar overall system) that could use 5.56x45 in M16 magazines, 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 in AK magazines or 7.62x51 in M14 magazines with a mag well, bot and barrel change. The ability to use opfor ammo and mags by changing out the mag well, bolt and barrel would be a great asset to an expeditionary force than might outrun it's supply lines.

You wouldn't want every soldier or marine changing barrels and mag wells willy nilly, but it would be nice to be able to do that at the company or batallion level, as the situation dictated.

I like MGI's solution because it is an incremental, evolutionary change (compared to something like the SCAR or XM8) and would minimize changes to training and documentation.

heat, have you seen MGI Military's quick change barrel upper and modular lower receiver with interchangeable mag wells? LINK (http://www.mgimilitary.com/product.htm) It doesn't sound as simple as it is, but IF the M14 mag well and 7.62x51 bolt and barrels works as advertised it would be great for Marines, IMO.

You would have one platform with minimal changes in training (same fire controls and a very similar overall system) that could use 5.56x45 in M16 magazines, 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 in AK magazines or 7.62x51 in M14 magazines with a mag well, bot and barrel change. The ability to use opfor ammo and mags by changing out the mag well, bolt and barrel would be a great asset to an expeditionary force than might outrun it's supply lines.

You wouldn't want every soldier or marine changing barrels and mag wells willy nilly, but it would be nice to be able to do that at the company or batallion level, as the situation dictated.

I like MGI's solution because it is an incremental, evolutionary change (compared to something like the SCAR or XM8) and would minimize changes to training and documentation.

All I can say is wow...it's impressive!

But it's way over my head.

I just think that if I were a Company CO right now, going to the sandbox. I'd want DPMS Ap4's or Springfield Socoms, Glock .45 and away we go.

An Ex-Delta guy came to our department talking about Incident Command. I heard he was super high speed. A guy that like's to stick his finger in the fan alot. He had a trunk full of toys. Stuff that has been there done that. He had a Socom in 7.62x51 with a cheap Japanese reflex knock off site that was beat to hell.

Guess what? The crap is bullet proof and zombie tactical. He had a AR in 5.56 with a carry handle...he said because there are all kinds of optics...Russian, Chinese...whatever designed to fit that stupid hole in the carry handle.

I just can't get KISS out of my head. I see lots of crap on AR15.com and elsewhere. And I wonder if they have ever had to hump their crap for 28 miles and then fight?

My goal now is to get my crap together and keep it simple. I'm going tonight to IDPA match to practice!!!!

Peace out!

Peace out!
What exactly does that mean? Is it a variation of "Peace off!"? :D

What exactly does that mean? Is it a variation of "Peace off!"? :D


aka see ya later

What exactly does that mean? Is it a variation of "Peace off!"? :D

Yeah...it doesn't mean anything. It's mindless crapola.

How bout....Semper Fi!

Originally posted by Heat762

We notice simple things like "bigger club kill quicker!"

I like this guy :D

I agree, Heat, but if we follow the same KISS ( caveman ? :D ) logic a little further:

Medium club ( Grendel ) kill quicker than little club ( 5.56mm ), but not so heavy as big club ( 7.62mm ) !


Originally posted by Heat762

And I wonder if they have ever had to hump their crap for 28 miles and then fight?

Grendel would surely be easier in this regard than an AP4 :cool:

Also, as to the Glock, what about 10mm ? More rounds in the mag, more penetration than .45 and some even give it the edge in stopping ability. :D ( again with medium club ?!?!? )

I'll agree with that.

But, today...logistically, what can we field immediately? Thats the million dollar question.

We can beat it to death...and we probably will.....it's fun!!!!

Like I said earlier....I like this 6.5 thing...I think it's got real promise. Mr. Alexander seems like an awesome fellow. I'd like to have a beer with him! If I could snap my fingers and put 6.5's in my buddies hands in the sandbox right now, I'd give my left nut to do it.

Okay....back to the lurking. You guys are way over my head with your ballistics and numbers and such. I'm just trying to scrape up enough scratch to have a rifle!!!

But, today...logistically, what can we field immediately? Thats the million dollar question.



MGI QCB uppers and 6.5G or 7.62x39 bolts and barrels and mags?

Add MGI modular lowers, AR, AK and M14 mag wells and 7.62x51 bolts and barrels and you have the versatility to use most of the mags and ammo in the US and OPFOR inventory (and you wouldn't need to add 6.5 or 6.8 to the logistical system).

All of it is "on the shelf" as we speak. All it would take is money and will to buy it "off the shelf". (OK, MGI is still testing the 7.62x51 gear, but one can hope ;) )

Heat762, if we are talking what could be fielded logistically right now, it would have to be M14's of whatever description.

Another option that you might like, if time permitted, is a shortened FAL by DSA - it has a 11" barrel and can launch surplus Radway Green 7.62 NATO at 2419 fps !

In other words it has twice the power of an AK47 at 350 yards and I would consider it deadly ( power wise ) to 700 yards. It would also be quite controllable in full auto - Sort of a SHORTER, BIGGER CLUB :D :D - check out the link below


www.dsarms.com/pdf/SOF1002.pdf#search=%22battle%20rifle%20punch%20in%20a%20subgun%20profile%22

I've heard the military has issued the available M14s. IIRC many of them were cut-up during the Clinton Administration. I've also heard rumors on www.ar15.com that some units are buying commercial M1As, but don't know if it's true.

FALs variants would be a viable off-the-shelf solution, but introduces an entirely new (well, since the T48) weapon and accessories, training and documentation to the logistical system. I'm not sure how much that matters. I don't think anyone said "M14" while I was in the Army, let alone give me any training about it...

Heat762, if we are talking what could be fielded logistically right now, it would have to be M14's of whatever description.

Another option that you might like, if time permitted, is a shortened FAL by DSA - it has a 11" barrel and can launch surplus Radway Green 7.62 NATO at 2419 fps !
I like the FAL. It has good sights, and is extremely accurate when properly assembled. Also, the FAL has a better "feel" than any other military rifle I've handled, second only to an M14 fitted with an "E2" stock.

However, the FAL has been criticized for susceptibility to sand and dust, which are in abundance in Iraq and Afghanistan... :eek:

One other thing -- short-barreled, high-velocity rifles produce an exruciatingly loud muzzle blast, detrimental to both hearing and marksmanship. :(

However, the FAL has been criticized for susceptibility to sand and dust, which are in abundance in Iraq and Afghanistan... :eek:

Stan, didn't those criticisms arise from the Isrealis? IIRC, there's some question about how well they were maintained (although there's no question the poorly maintained AKs on the other side worked ;) ).

I know the Brits did a lot of research on the "sand issue" (even constructing a "sandstorm machine" to blow sand into the action during operation). The result was the sand cuts on the L1A1's bolt carrier and lower receiver rails. IF we supplemented our small arms with FALs, maybe we should specify L1A1-style sand cuts.

I like this guy :D

I agree, Heat, but if we follow the same KISS ( caveman ? :D ) logic a little further:

Medium club ( Grendel ) kill quicker than little club ( 5.56mm ), but not so heavy as big club ( 7.62mm ) !




Grendel would surely be easier in this regard than an AP4 :cool:

Also, as to the Glock, what about 10mm ? More rounds in the mag, more penetration than .45 and some even give it the edge in stopping ability. :D ( again with medium club ?!?!? )


jmho, but the glock 10mm and .45 have too large of grips for a lot of people to use well.

Witness 10mm and 45, however...

Stan, didn't those criticisms arise from the Isrealis? IIRC, there's some question about how well they were maintained (although there's no question the poorly maintained AKs on the other side worked ;) ).

I know the Brits did a lot of research on the "sand issue" (even constructing a "sandstorm machine" to blow sand into the action during operation). The result was the sand cuts on the L1A1's bolt carrier and lower receiver rails. IF we supplemented our small arms with FALs, maybe we should specify L1A1-style sand cuts.

The Israelis were using the M9 way back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war and when the dust settled out in the Egyptian desert they went and retrieved all of their destroyed gear. One of the things they found were M9s that infantry had dropped which had been ground into the desert sand by tanks, in some cases many times. Many there were able to pick out of the desert floor, blow the dust off of and fire the entire mag without any malfunction. The key to this flawless operation is the cut-away slider which allows sand a means of exit from the weapon. My vote is the DOD stick with this great weapon, but rechamber it for 40 S&W. In a recent test Berretta fired a dozen M9s non-stop for the life of the barrel without one single malfunction. Yes, aftermarket mags turned out to be crap as the springs failed, but none from Berretta have failed.

My FS96 is not as accurate as a Sig, which the Cougar could likely match, but for close-range combat where reliability is everything the Berretta FS96 is the best there is. I have personally had Wather, Glock and even Sigs malfunction on me, but my FS96 has never failed me once. Getting the gun nice and hot a few times does help it "settle down" and tighten up its groups.

The Beretta is a quality weapon. And that is a good idea, swapping out mags and barreles for .40!!! I get sick of people poo-pooing the M9 because they had one in the military and they didn't like it, whatever! I had one and it was old as crap and I qualified expert with it many times!

My biggest peeve now is this whole pistol grip arguement. People need more practice and less time to complain! I have a SigPro for duty carry and I f'ing hate it. I have tried both the backstraps and they both suck. Still, I qualify expert with it! Get over the crap! It's the brick you were issued....learn to fight with it! I think some of my generation are cry babies. We have too many choices!

Has anyone picked up a SOCOM pistol, the H&K .45? I have..I've got big hands and that thing is a montrosity!!! It was meant to be operated with gloves on, and you want to talk about huge. I bet the those "operators" aren't whining about it though.

I just think that men shouldn't be complaining about grips. I can't imagine Dan Daly, Chesty Puller, or Carlos Hathcock going, "gee, I wish I had different grips on this thing."

One thing that makes someone great is their ability to adapt!!!!!!

Semper Fi

Stan, didn't those criticisms arise from the Isrealis?
I think the Israelis did voice that complaint, which was the stated rationale for developing the Galil. I'm not sure if the IDF was the only military to criticize the FAL on those grounds.

The Israelis were using the M9 way back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war...
Not possible. The M9 didn't exist before the 1980s. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Beretta M951?

Has anyone picked up a SOCOM pistol, the H&K .45? I have..I've got big hands and that thing is a montrosity!!! It was meant to be operated with gloves on, and you want to talk about huge. I bet the those "operators" aren't whining about it though.
On the other hand, maybe they have complained about the ridiculous size. A little while back SOCOM was looking to develop a new .45 pistol capable of taking a sound suppressor, although latest word is that they've decided to go with .40 caliber.

On the other hand, maybe they have complained about the ridiculous size. A little while back SOCOM was looking to develop a new .45 pistol capable of taking a sound suppressor, although latest word is that they've decided to go with .40 caliber.

But, I would be surprised/shocked if they went with .40!!!!

Wouldn't that be a paradigm shift....

.40 cal pretty much dominating the police realm finding its way to the military?

Sounds like trickle up, instead of trickle down :confused:

But, I would be surprised/shocked if they went with .40!!!!

Wouldn't that be a paradigm shift....

.40 cal pretty much dominating the police realm finding its way to the military?

Sounds like trickle up, instead of trickle down :confused:


The 40 SUPER is the best of all the bottleneck 40's, too bad it can be picky feeding. Hopefully, someone will pick it back up one day. I could never duplicate Triton's claim of a 1800 fps 135 gr HP load, but I did have some 1525+ fps 135 grain loads and a 1400 fps 165 gr GS load.


Mike

I heard rumors that the biggest complaint was that the Mk23 SOCOM was just a hair shy of being the same size as a Desert Eagle, but only packed 12 .45 ACP rounds. That was the justification for HK coming up with the USP tactical, which had the same basic layout, but in the full sized USP package. Now apparently HK is learning from the "slimmer grip" crowd for thier HK45 project (supposedly the slimmed the grip down to something closer to the new Springfield XP45) but they kept the 12 round mags.

Hey, if the M9 lives up to what its supposed to do, great. I just can't stand the slide mounted saftey. The Browning designed frame mounted saftey is much more intuitive and a bit quicker to disengage when drawing the pistol. Thats one of the reasons i liked the Taurus clone over the original 92F. It uses the frame mounted safty...though I dont know about thier quality, never owned one myself.

I'm with Heat on the issue of 6.5 in combat right now. The biggest stumbling block is not the lack of rifles, since it wouldn't take much for the big guys to tool up to manufacture new uppers for the troops, its the lack of ammo. With no major manufacturer to date cranking it out in stockpilable levels, those of us on a budget just cant afford to feed one, and the military can't load down their troops with enough ammo to sustain combat ops. If Wolf would get off thier butts and get the ammo cranked out, then we would be on the way to solving that problem.

Tell those guys I want ammo for my "medium club"! :D

Stan,

I don't know if you followed the link, but it leads to an article by David Fortier and he does say that muzzle flash and blast are substantially less than an 11" barreled 5.56mm - so, maybe, not too bad ?

457ciSBC,

The .40 Super is a necked down .45 Super, right ? that would mean having a large grip to accomodate a double column feed.

The .40 S & W can be loaded pretty stiff - Vihtavuori has a load from a 5.5 " test barrel running 1118 fps with a 200 grain TMJ and a company called Double Tap Ammunition has a load for a 200 grain FMJ-FP that is advertised at 1050 fps from a 4" barreled Glock 23 or 1100 fps from a 4.5" barrel ( Glock 22 ? ).

I don't know about you guys, but I would be happy with that performance :D

Looks like a nice medium club to me :D

Stan,

I don't know if you followed the link, but it leads to an article by David Fortier and he does say that muzzle flash and blast are substantially less than an 11" barreled 5.56mm - so, maybe, not too bad ?

457ciSBC,

The .40 Super is a necked down .45 Super, right ? that would mean having a large grip to accomodate a double column feed.

The .40 S & W can be loaded pretty stiff - Vihtavuori has a load from a 5.5 " test barrel running 1118 fps with a 200 grain TMJ and a company called Double Tap Ammunition has a load for a 200 grain FMJ-FP that is advertised at 1050 fps from a 4" barreled Glock 23 or 1100 fps from a 4.5" barrel ( Glock 22 ? ).

I don't know about you guys, but I would be happy with that performance :D

Looks like a nice medium club to me :D

IIRC, the 40 Super was first. It's a 45 Win Mag case made with a small rifle primer pocket necked down to .40 cal. I think the 45 Super has the larger pockets and is not quite as thick in the web area as the 40 Super. The loads mentioned above were comfortable loads. I did get some 135 loads up in the 1700's but they were dangerous pressures, lot's a muzzle flash and very hard on the gun even with a 28lb recoil spring and buffer.

Mike

457ciSBC,

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I have no problem with the .40 Super's performance - I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by a 135 grain anything travelling at even the more sedate 1525+ fps :eek:

But, somebody did mention grip size as a factor and the .40 Super is .480 at it's maximum diameter ( the rim, according to Ammoguide ) whereas the .40 S & W is only .424 at it's maximum diameter ( rim and casehead, again according to Ammoguide ) and it has a slightly shorter C.O.A.L., which means more cartridges in the mag and a smaller grip circumference.

A .40 caliber, 200 grain bullet at 1050/1100 fps wouldn't be too terrible - a .45 ACP would have to go + p to match that velocity with a 200 grain bullet :D

457ciSBC,

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I have no problem with the .40 Super's performance - I certainly wouldn't want to get hit by a 135 grain anything travelling at even the more sedate 1525+ fps :eek:

But, somebody did mention grip size as a factor and the .40 Super is .480 at it's maximum diameter ( the rim, according to Ammoguide ) whereas the .40 S & W is only .424 at it's maximum diameter ( rim and casehead, again according to Ammoguide ) and it has a slightly shorter C.O.A.L., which means more cartridges in the mag and a smaller grip circumference.

A .40 caliber, 200 grain bullet at 1050/1100 fps wouldn't be too terrible - a .45 ACP would have to go + p to match that velocity with a 200 grain bullet :D


Yeah, same as 45 ACP as I built mine on a 1911 frame and slide. I have an early Glock M23 that I've loaded the 135 pretty hot too. Around 7.6 grains of Univ Clays pushes it around 1370 fps but the brass doesn't last long because of the unsupported chamber and I never bothered to send it barrel back to have it replaced. I stopped doing round counts around 9600 and I believe it now has about 11,000 through it, all reloads except for 100 AE factory rounds and never a malfunction. Hey back when I was single I even cleaned it by putting it in the dishwasher. The most accurate 40's that I've ever shot have been the HK USP's but it's like gripping a brick as I think they are too bulky.

I love all the 40's

Not possible. The M9 didn't exist before the 1980s. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Beretta M951?

In the spring of 1980 I did a rather extensive search for a pistol for one of my in-laws in the special forces. I chose what became the M9 based on many glowing reviews of the Berretta 92. The US DOD adopted the weapon as their standard sidearm around 1985 iirc. I'm curious now so I'll look into the history of the 92, but I think its likely been around since the late 1960s.

PS: That was easy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_92
.. it was designed in 1975 and adopted by the US DOD in 1985. Scratching my head now. It was definately around in 1979-1980 because took the request for an RX very seriously and did a lot of research. The Israelis did use the M1951 in 1973. Good catch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M1951

Hey, if the M9 lives up to what its supposed to do, great. I just can't stand the slide mounted saftey. The Browning designed frame mounted saftey is much more intuitive and a bit quicker to disengage when drawing the pistol.
As thumb safeties go, I'm rather partial to the frame-mounted type, too.

I must take issue with your last point, though. With a double-action pistol it isn't necessary to have the safety engaged when holstered, which makes it faster to "disengage." :D

Personally, when it comes to 9mm pistols for military combat, I think that the Glock 17 is by far the best. Ultra-reliable, lightweight, large mag capacity...and no thumb safety to mess with. ;)

As thumb safeties go, I'm rather partial to the frame-mounted type, too.

I must take issue with your last point, though. With a double-action pistol it isn't necessary to have the safety engaged when holstered, which makes it faster to "disengage." :D

Personally, when it comes to 9mm pistols for military combat, I think that the Glock 17 is by far the best. Ultra-reliable, lightweight, large mag capacity...and no thumb safety to mess with. ;)

I like the Glock... I had it issued in Kosovo, and found it very user-friendly and reliable. The only problems I had with it was that I had some problems reaching the mag-release, and that the trigger was a bit heavy.

It may not be the ultimate gun for the high-end user, or as a primary gun, but as a backupgun for an infantry-soldier, it s hard to beat. Just pull the slide back, aim, and pull the trigger... Excellent for high-stress situations...
And with one of those 31rd mags, you have some quite serious firepower...

Stan, I don't know if you followed the link, but it leads to an article by David Fortier and he does say that muzzle flash and blast are substantially less than an 11" barreled 5.56mm - so, maybe, not too bad ?
I did read the article. I based my statement on personal experience with an M14K, which had a 13" barrel (and attached muzzle brake/flash suppressor). Didn't shoot it in dim light, so can't comment on flash. As to muzzle blast, it was absolutely necessary to wear good hearing protection when firing the rifle, or even just being in close proximity.

For example, when another shooter took his turn at the trigger, I was seated about 20 ft directly behind him, and didn't have my "ears" on because I hadn't noticed he was ready to shoot. The report was extremely -- and quite painfully -- loud.

In my judgment, the 13"-barreled M14K had far louder muzzle blast than even the 9"-barreled M16K. I haven't fired the 11"-barreled FAL, but don't see how it could be any better in this regard.

Wrong thread... :D

As its a natural movement to sweep your thumb down into firing position I don't see how sweeping off a standard frame mounted thumb saftey is any faster than having no active saftey at all. In fact, the double action trigger pull might actually make it slower than a single action cocked and locked. Next time I get some range time with my .45 I will test the theory as its a USP (I find it comfortable enough) and I can test it both in single action with the safty on and double action with the hammer down and safty disengaged. And yes, I practice speed drawing my sidearm. It might be a somewhat archaic skill, but it keeps me sharp.

Also, just for the peace of mind, I like having an "OFF" switch for my sidearm when I go to reholster on a loaded chamber.

As its a natural movement to sweep your thumb down into firing position I don't see how sweeping off a standard frame mounted thumb saftey is any faster than having no active saftey at all.
I'm assuming you meant just the opposite of what you wrote. In that case, you could be right, depending on the individual. In my particular case, for example, when practicing presentations from the holster with a Colt Gov't Model, on more than a few draws my thumb failed to connect with the safety. :eek: That really slows things down. :o However, with the Glock 17 that I used to own, that problem never, ever occurred.
In fact, the double action trigger pull might actually make it slower than a single action cocked and locked.
Now it appears that you are attempting to change the discussion from speed of disengaging the thumb safety to speed of getting off an accurate first shot. Again, it's an individual thing. In my case, you're right. With the M92 Beretta I once had, firing the first shot double-action invariably was slower, and worse still, the bullet usually missed the target by a wide margin. In contrast, another shooter I know can fire a D-A first shot quite quickly and accurately.
Next time I get some range time with my .45 I will test the theory as its a USP and I can test it both in single action with the safty on and double action with the hammer down and safty disengaged.
Since we've been discussing sidearms for military use, one test you might include is to try both modes of operation while wearing gloves (something that'd be necessary in the Afghan mountains in winter, for instance). If you can also get the use of a Glock 17 to compare, you might find it interesting.
Also, just for the peace of mind, I like having an "OFF" switch for my sidearm when I go to reholster on a loaded chamber.
As Dirty Harry once said, "It's a wise man who knows his own limitations." :D

As for me, I have no qualms about holstering a loaded Glock. I just keep my finger off the trigger. ;)

Actually, since I train myself with gloves on, thats not going to be a problem. I live in the Texas Hill Country, so if I slip or whatever, its nice to have gloves on anyway. I prefer something along the lines of slim line bicycle/hunting gloves, or flight gloves due to the heat around here.

Yah, I meant slower, not faster :o

Originally posted by StanC

In my judgment, the 13"-barreled M14K had far louder muzzle blast than even the 9"-barreled M16K. I haven't fired the 11"-barreled FAL, but don't see how it could be any better in this regard.

That's good enough for me, Stan.

How would that compare to a standard M14, though ?

In Extreme Dust Test III, 10 M-4 carbines are subjected to 25 hours of constant heavy dusting after which 6,000 rounds were fired from each weapon. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt.

http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/12/18/11427/

In Extreme Dust Test III, 10 M-4 carbines are subjected to 25 hours of constant heavy dusting after which 6,000 rounds were fired from each weapon. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt.

http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/12/18/11427/

That's all well and swell, but I wonder how many failures they encountered along the way. And how that compares to other designs.

That's all well and swell, but I wonder how many failures they encountered along the way.
That's a good question. I don't know if that data is publicly available.
And how that compares to other designs.
IIRC, there was a similar test comparing M4, XM8, HK416, and SCAR. If you're interested, try googling for it. (It might have been posted somewhere in the 65grendel forum, too.)

That's a good question. I don't know if that data is publicly available.

IIRC, there was a similar test comparing M4, XM8, HK416, and SCAR. If you're interested, try googling for it. (It might have been posted somewhere in the 65grendel forum, too.)


I remember seeing it. If I recall correctly, the standard M4 lost by a large margin. It was blamed on magazines.

In Extreme Dust Test III, 10 M-4 carbines are subjected to 25 hours of constant heavy dusting after which 6,000 rounds were fired from each weapon. All weapons exhibited significant wear that rendered them unsafe for firing beyond 6,000 rounds without replacement of the barrel and/or bolt.