US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ahillock
    Warrior
    • Jan 2016
    • 339

    US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

    More of article here:
    According to multiple sources, what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads h ...
  • ricsmall
    Warrior
    • Sep 2014
    • 987

    #2
    Sounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability? SMH. I would think the weight on the larger platform will be too much for some to bear. If the 5.56 has worked this long, why can't someone see the sensibility in swapping to Grendel? Just my common sense thoughts. I'm sure I'm missing something.

    I may get flamed a bit by the guys that have been there and done that, but I'll take it as well as I give it!! Lol.

    Richard
    Member since 2011, data lost in last hack attack

    Comment

    • Rickc
      Warrior
      • Aug 2016
      • 311

      #3
      I wonder how many millions.of.rounds of 5.56 our military has. Will be a long.transition.

      why we wound up with a .22 cal military rifle always baffled me. Guess when you are mass producing troops that have never touched a rifle in six.weeks you give them a low recoiling rifle with light ammo where they can carry a lot of it.

      Comment

      • mdram
        Warrior
        • Sep 2016
        • 941

        #4
        264 usa info

        just some targets for printing
        https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...xQ?usp=sharing

        Comment

        • LR1955
          Super Moderator
          • Mar 2011
          • 3355

          #5
          Guys:

          Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.

          Comment

          • ahillock
            Warrior
            • Jan 2016
            • 339

            #6
            Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
            Guys:

            Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.
            Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.

            Comment

            • MeatAxe
              Bloodstained
              • Mar 2016
              • 48

              #7
              Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

              Recently, I've shared quite a few briefings by Jim Schatz. It's not only because he recently passed away, but also because they are so timely. We ...


              Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.

              Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"
              Last edited by MeatAxe; 04-05-2017, 08:09 PM.

              Comment

              • LR1955
                Super Moderator
                • Mar 2011
                • 3355

                #8
                Originally posted by ahillock View Post
                Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.
                AH:

                Why wouldn't the author at least say 'Infantry School'? After all, they are the proponents of such things, particularly since the article concerned the BCT's. The guy didn't even say 'Brigade Combat Teams'.

                I got a feeling this guy was on a deadline to produce X number of words for a publication and so that is exactly what he did.

                LR55

                Comment

                • LRRPF52
                  Super Moderator
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 8569

                  #9
                  Originally posted by LR1955 View Post
                  Guys:

                  Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.
                  My exact response as well. Soldier Systems is run by someone who knows 2 things about dismounted infantry reality and weapons mix:

                  Jack and squat

                  "According to multiple sources...."

                  Reminds me of when Defense Review said the USMC has decided to adopt Arsenal milled receiver AKs in the middle of OIF because of reliability issues with the M16A4.

                  Or the time where Defense Review said the USMC just adopted the .45 GAP Glock pistols to replace M9s.

                  This article is total BS, concocted by someone with barely enough information to make a mess.
                  Last edited by LRRPF52; 04-05-2017, 09:42 PM.
                  NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                  CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                  6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                  www.AR15buildbox.com

                  Comment

                  • LRRPF52
                    Super Moderator
                    • Sep 2014
                    • 8569

                    #10
                    Originally posted by MeatAxe View Post
                    Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

                    Recently, I've shared quite a few briefings by Jim Schatz. It's not only because he recently passed away, but also because they are so timely. We ...


                    Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.

                    Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"
                    Name me one single assault rifle design you have personally burned higher round count through with better reliability, deployed with, and is the number one choice by units who actually have the ability to select their small arms mix.
                    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                    www.AR15buildbox.com

                    Comment

                    • LRRPF52
                      Super Moderator
                      • Sep 2014
                      • 8569

                      #11
                      The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.
                      What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?

                      The PKM, which is used more like a squad-level LMG than a GPMG.

                      It's as if someone never even cared to look at the MTOE, certainly not someone who spent even a week as an 11B or 0311.

                      We never did anything without M60s and M240s, and since then, the Mk.48 7.62 NATO LMG has been fielded to provide more maneuverability.

                      But no, we need every swinging rifleman, grenadier, team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, assistant gunner, ammo bearer, RTO, etc. carrying an M14 or some garbage from HK now, with less than half the basic load per weight.

                      Someone needs a urinalysis or education before they put things into articles, maybe some editorial oversight from someone that actually knows what's going on.
                      NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                      CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                      6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                      www.AR15buildbox.com

                      Comment

                      • Klem
                        Chieftain
                        • Aug 2013
                        • 3507

                        #12
                        Originally posted by ahillock View Post
                        Because sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.
                        Can we just say it lacks credibility?

                        I have the impression the author has a snippet of information and built a story around the hypothetical. 2% is the snippet and 98% is what he thinks might happen.

                        Comment

                        • LRRPF52
                          Super Moderator
                          • Sep 2014
                          • 8569

                          #13
                          It's as if someone never saw an Infantry Platoon and the weapons that are not only organic to it, but central to much of the planning, training, and operational use.

                          Then there is the reality that whoever wrote the article never worked with a dismounted infantry unit and our attachments.

                          They're talking about over-matching an enemy equipped with 17lb PKMs firing linked 7.62x54R for starters, which is something we've discussed for how many years now?

                          The rifleman does not do that, doesn't have the optics and training to do that, and no system that I am aware of can provide the necessary training for every rifleman to do that, which is why we have SAW gunners, gun teams, and snipers.

                          When gun teams and snipers go to the transition range, all we would do was practice engaging targets at distance.

                          Guess who goes out with Platoons when they leave the wire? Gun Teams are part of the Platoon, so them.

                          Every single Rifle Squad has 2 SAW gunners, who have also been upgraded with 7.62 NATO Mk.48s in later years.

                          As Snipers, we were almost always attached to line Platoons, or as line Platoons, we had Snipers attached. That was before widespread replacement of the M24 with the M110 too.

                          Nope. Soldier systems says we need 7.62 battle rifles. The level of ignorance about how things work never ceases to chafe my backside.
                          NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                          CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                          6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                          www.AR15buildbox.com

                          Comment

                          • stanc
                            Banned
                            • Apr 2011
                            • 3430

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ricsmall View Post
                            Sounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability?
                            7.62 ammo is already in the system. Adopting a new caliber would take much time and testing, in addition to developing new loadings like Tracer, AP, etc.

                            Regarding a transition to .260, the following remarks may be of interest:

                            "...US SOCOM is currently conducting an operational test with .260 Remington carbines and light machine guns. ... Anecdotal feedback about the US SOCOM test of .260 Remington suggests that users are highly satisfied with it. It shoots flat and fast to deliver much better accuracy than 7.62 mm M80 and has less felt recoil. What is interesting is that ARDEC has also gone to the trouble to develop a 6.5 mm EPR bullet for it."

                            No formal Army requirement for the CTSAS system has been generated yet. We can assume one will follow after the results of the SAAC study are published (any day now). In the meantime, and what I imagine has been driving Textron's efforts, is that US SOCOM is currently conducting an operational test with .260 Remington carbines and light machine guns. This being the case, it would make sense to develop an analogous CT round in 6.5 mm for comparison purposes. Anecdotal feedback about the US SOCOM test of .260 Remington suggests that users are highly satisfied with it. It shoots flat and fast to deliver much better accuracy than 7.62 mm M80 and has less felt recoil. What is interesting is that ARDEC has also gone to the trouble to develop a 6.5 mm EPR bullet for it. This doesn't mean that 6.5 mm is a certainty for the next US Army caliber. I know there are people within US ARDEC who believe that, with more case capacity, 5.56 mm could be made to perform better. So a CTSAS improved 5.56 mm round could yet be...

                            Comment

                            • ricsmall
                              Warrior
                              • Sep 2014
                              • 987

                              #15
                              Stan

                              Roger on the ammo availability. Just doesn't make sense to change platforms to go with a 7.62, then swap again to a 260 or other cartridge. Looks like bogus info so it's a moot point. The discussion you linked to on the 260 testing is encouraging though.

                              Richard
                              Member since 2011, data lost in last hack attack

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X