Serbia adopting 6.5 Grendel as main military cartridge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • LR1955
    Super Moderator
    • Mar 2011
    • 3355

    #61
    Originally posted by MeatAxe View Post
    What? No booze, hookers, Rolls Royces or bribes? Clearly, you're going on the wrong junkets...just give "Uncle Duke" a call...

    SAN DIEGO - A trial about power, bribery and a dirty politiciantook another tawdry turn Wednesday, as a hooker from Hawaiitestified that Poway businessman Brent Wilkes argued with formerNorth County Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham over who would getthe prettier of two prostitutes.



    Here's an objective "competition": the M4 starts getting its butt kicked by a competitor, so the Army changes the rules, when that doesn't change the results, they stop the test outright and declare the M4 the winner...typical. What is the point of holding such "competitions" when we know the miserable status quo is going to win by default no matter what? I guess there were still tax payer dollars in the budget that needed to be wasted so they could get more money to waste for the upcoming year...




    In other news, the Feds report that the Russians rigged the election by revealing how the Kleptocrats rigged the election...
    MA:

    I read the Washington Times article. Most likely some or all of the competition surpassed the M-4 in one or more tests. However, that doesn't mean they surpassed the M-4 in the majority of tests or that they surpassed the M-4 in any of the critical tests. The article does not say any of the competition was better in the majority of the tests or better in any critical test or requirement. Guess why? Because, most likely, none were!

    Folks would be amazed at the temper tantrums thrown by respectable companies when their pet rock fails a test. The first thing they normally complain about is the ammo. Then something about how the test was written or how it was conducted or what someone said during the test or any one of a hundred excuses for their failure. The thing they don't say is that they agreed to the test in the first place and their stuff failed. What happens more often than not is that a company submits their item for testing knowing it does not meet a requirement but hoping that somehow the requirement will be overlooked. Another thing that losers do is start arguing about how to define things, particularly things like failures but only after they lose.

    There is more to this than meets the eye. I bet the M-4 bested the others in tests deemed critical and or that it was a draw where one had to look at life cycle costs and found it cheaper to keep the M-4.

    Just my belief having witnessed this type of thing a couple of times.

    LR55

    Comment

    • MeatAxe
      Bloodstained
      • Mar 2016
      • 48

      #62
      Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
      Duke Cunningham? He went to Federal prison. His own aides tried to warn him to stop his bribery ads, which he even had printed in the back of his Congressional business card. A former SF guy blew the whistle on him. Not sure what that has to do with small arms procurement.

      The tests the Army did at Aberdeen were clearly rigged. They used M4s with multiple deployment histories with used and abused mags, against brand new HK416s and SCARs.

      When the tests were conducted again, the MTBF numbers were totally different, which should not have happened for a consistent and repeatable test procedure. If you get your info about small arms testing from one of the usual presstitute brothels, you might as well not even read the article, because it is written by someone who knows literally nothing about the subject matter, and is just some knee-jerk reaction from an ignoramus designed to get click counts for a dying disinformation brothel.

      When 10th Group did their own internal, unbiased testing between the M4A1, SCAR-L, and HK416, they didn't see any meaningful difference in MTBF between the designs, as they were very skeptical about the results from Aberdeen. The aren't any units in the conventional Army that shoot anywhere near the round counts that SF does, and the organization sees substantial fleet samples of how the design performs at high volume, in addition to the foreign weapons in inventory, which constitute a huge amount of effort for maintenance as well to maintain proficiency in the use and training with those systems.

      Keep the political conversations about elections out of this thread. This isn't the place for them.


      Duke Cunningham is the poster boy of the defense procurement game, you know, $500 hammers, bribes, hookers, etc. ...perpetual tests / bandaids for the M16/4...

      Assuming the army tested knackered out M4s against new FNs, HKs, etc. (and I've never seen that printed anywhere) what the hell would that exercise prove? Water is wet? Whoever came up with that idea certainly hatched a creative boondoggle at tax payer expense. Why not set up a test between the M4 and the Trapdoor Springfield?

      Meanwhile, half a century on, our troops are still saddled with this POS M16/4 5.56.

      Oh look, seems the US military is tired of their M4s and M249s getting out gunned by ancient .303 Enfields and 7.62x54R (as well as AKs) in Afghanistan, so they want to rush a new 7.62 NATO battle rifle into production for $$$$$$$$$:

      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 ...


      Too bad the Clintonistas sent 400,000 good as new M14s off the rack and into the cruncher, otherwise we could have dusted those off and given our troops instant ballistic parity for almost nothing. Are there any old M60s or M240s left in the inventory, collecting dust? What about T48s -- or were they shipped off to ISIS with the rest of the FALs...

      Same old same old "military industrial complex" at play. Fund another study and do nothing.

      ETA: What am I thinking? 7.62 NATO kicks way too much to be utilized by feminine elements of our combat troops. NEXT!!!
      Last edited by MeatAxe; 04-05-2017, 08:35 PM.

      Comment

      • LR1955
        Super Moderator
        • Mar 2011
        • 3355

        #63
        Originally posted by MeatAxe View Post
        Duke Cunningham is the poster boy of the defense procurement game, you know, $500 hammers, bribes, hookers, etc. ...perpetual tests / bandaids for the M16/4...

        Assuming the army tested knackered out M4s against new FNs, HKs, etc. (and I've never seen that printed anywhere) what the hell would that exercise prove? Water is wet? Whoever came up with that idea certainly hatched a creative boondoggle at tax payer expense. Why not set up a test between the M4 and the Trapdoor Springfield?

        Meanwhile, half a century on, our troops are still saddled with this POS M16/4 5.56.

        Oh look, seems the US military is tired of their M4s and M249s getting out gunned by ancient .303 Enfields and 7.62x54R (as well as AKs) in Afghanistan, so they want to rush a new 7.62 NATO battle rifle into production for $$$$$$$$$:

        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 ...


        Too bad the Clintonistas sent 400,000 good as new M14s off the rack and into the cruncher, otherwise we could have dusted those off and given our troops instant ballistic parity for almost nothing. Are there any old M60s or M240s left in the inventory, collecting dust? What about T48s -- or were they shipped off to ISIS with the rest of the FALs...

        Same old same old "military industrial complex" at play. Fund another study and do nothing.
        MA:

        Can't remember if you served or not. So remind us given I forgot. What unit, when, and MOS please?

        LR55

        Comment

        • LRRPF52
          Super Moderator
          • Sep 2014
          • 8569

          #64
          Originally posted by MeatAxe View Post
          Duke Cunningham is the poster boy of the defense procurement game, you know, $500 hammers, bribes, hookers, etc. ...perpetual tests / bandaids for the M16/4...

          Assuming the army tested knackered out M4s against new FNs, HKs, etc. (and I've never seen that printed anywhere) what the hell would that exercise prove? Water is wet? Whoever came up with that idea certainly hatched a creative boondoggle at tax payer expense. Why not set up a test between the M4 and the Trapdoor Springfield?

          Meanwhile, half a century on, our troops are still saddled with this POS M16/4 5.56.

          Oh look, seems the US military is tired of their M4s and M249s getting out gunned by ancient .303 Enfields and 7.62x54R (as well as AKs) in Afghanistan, so they want to rush a new 7.62 NATO battle rifle into production for $$$$$$$$$:

          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 ...


          Too bad the Clintonistas sent 400,000 good as new M14s off the rack and into the cruncher, otherwise we could have dusted those off and given our troops instant ballistic parity for almost nothing. Are there any old M60s or M240s left in the inventory, collecting dust? What about T48s -- or were they shipped off to ISIS with the rest of the FALs...

          Same old same old "military industrial complex" at play. Fund another study and do nothing.

          ETA: What am I thinking? 7.62 NATO kicks way too much to be utilized by feminine elements of our combat troops. NEXT!!!
          You know nothing of what you are talking about.

          We had M14s for DMRs and M21s in several of the units I was in. The M14 and M24 SWS have since been displaced by the 7.62 NATO M110, which is in widespread use in infantry units.

          You keep referring to the M4 as a POS, but it isn't. It's the best assault rifle design ever, at least out of all the ones I have personally used when working with foreign weapons and foreign armies. If another country has a better design, I'd love to see it. So far, nothing.

          T48? You realize the T48 was basically a US experimental FAL in the 1950s, not mass-produced. I'd be surprised if there were more than 10 or 20 of them.

          You need to stop posting inflammatory BS on this site though. Take it somewhere else. Study more, post less is all I can say. Every one of your premises is a false one.
          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

            #65
            Originally posted by MeatAxe View Post
            Oh look, seems the US military is tired of their M4s and M249s getting out gunned by ancient .303 Enfields and 7.62x54R (as well as AKs) in Afghanistan, so they want to rush a new 7.62 NATO battle rifle into production for $$$$$$$$$:

            http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05...-battle-rifle/
            Interesting article. Thanks for the link.

            Comment

            • LRRPF52
              Super Moderator
              • Sep 2014
              • 8569

              #66
              Originally posted by stanc View Post
              Interesting article. Thanks for the link.
              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

                #67
                Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                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.

                <snip>

                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.
                Whatever one might think of its writing quality, the Soldier Systems article is not saying we need 7.62 battle rifles. It's reporting that adoption of a battle rifle is being considered.

                "...what started out as a directed requirement for a 7.62 NATO Designated Marksmanship Rifle for issue to Infantry Rifle Squads has grown in scope to increase the Basis of Issue to all personnel in Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond."

                Personally, I find that interesting. Ditto for the following comments in Tony Williams' MG&A forum:

                "...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

                • LRRPF52
                  Super Moderator
                  • Sep 2014
                  • 8569

                  #68
                  Considering issuing 7.62 NATO rifles to "all personnel in a Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond" is a telltale indicator that we're dealing with amateur hour yet again.

                  Clearly whoever wrote that is nowhere even familiar with the MTOE, and needs to find another profession and go away.

                  There are several small battles in the past 15 years I can name where guys in Sniper sections went black or within a few rounds of black on ammo that had SR25s or SCAR-Hs even with short barrels.

                  There are others where the Platoon Sergeant in a regular Infantry unit was running ammo resupply from position to position from his own 5.56, and they came perilously close to being overrun by Taliban.

                  Imagine if they would have been short-changed with 7.62 NATO basic load + even. You'd have a lot more casualties on your hands, more draped coffins.

                  5.56 saves lives of dismounted infantry because it leaves you with a lot of room when things go wrong. Missed resupplies, chance contact en route to your primary mission, maneuverability, and the close-in fight are all sustained by 5.56, where they would be utter failures if you hung the 7.62 NATO albatross around Joe's neck.

                  Why are we debating this retarded idea again? It's like people refuse to understand that there are way more duty positions than Joe Tentpeg rifleman, first-term soldier, with maybe 400 rounds of trigger time under his belt tops. Most have never fired a rifle before they joined the military, and the ones that have bring baggage that takes even more time to re-train, and it isn't happening in a normal unit qualification schedule.

                  Now you really want to screw him over with a cartridge that recoils more, requires a heavier rifle, comes off target quickly, and prevents him from being able to carry a sustainable basic load that will get him through chance contacts, his mission, and back to the PZ or through the wire. What morons sit around and think this garbage up?

                  As to the .260 Rem., those who know don't talk.
                  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

                    #69
                    Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                    Considering issuing 7.62 NATO rifles to "all personnel in a Brigade Combat Teams and perhaps beyond" is a telltale indicator that we're dealing with amateur hour yet again.

                    Clearly whoever wrote that is nowhere even familiar with the MTOE, and needs to find another profession and go away.

                    What morons sit around and think this garbage up?
                    As to the .260 Rem., those who know don't talk.
                    Uh huh. Is that like those who knew about 6.8 SPC didn't talk? Or those who knew about the SCAR didn't talk?

                    Please. Converting and testing .260 rifles and machine guns is hardly a top secret mission, and not all of the people involved would be tight-lipped, special operators. If I could learn about 6.8 SPC before it became known to the general public, why couldn't Guardsman26 -- a former infantry officer with numerous contacts in military and industry -- have learned about testing of .260 weapons?

                    Comment

                    • Cole Dedhand
                      Unwashed
                      • May 2017
                      • 19

                      #70
                      Out of curiousity I've been trying to find out what weight bullets they are using, but no joy. None of the articles seem to mention it.

                      Comment

                      • BluntForceTrauma
                        Administrator
                        • Feb 2011
                        • 3897

                        #71
                        U P D A T E : I've been following a thread on another forum and after months the Serb contact finally provided some UPDATES HERE.
                        :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

                        :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          #72
                          Originally posted by BluntForceTrauma View Post
                          U P D A T E : I've been following a thread on another forum and after months the Serb contact finally provided some UPDATES HERE.
                          Originally posted by Batob
                          Other thing which surprised me is, and you will see it from photos, is charging handle like on M16.
                          So they copied the absolutely worst feature of the M16/AR15 design...

                          Comment

                          • howl
                            Warrior
                            • Nov 2015
                            • 236

                            #73
                            Had to go to 4chan to see pics without registering an account. Wonder if it is really a charging handle since there's no ejection port cover

                            Comment

                            • stanc
                              Banned
                              • Apr 2011
                              • 3430

                              #74
                              Originally posted by howl View Post
                              Had to go to 4chan to see pics without registering an account. Wonder if it is really a charging handle since there's no ejection port cover
                              Well, there's no AK-type bolt handle, and no left-side charging handle, so I'd say it is really a charging handle.

                              Last edited by stanc; 11-16-2017, 06:14 PM.

                              Comment

                              • LRRPF52
                                Super Moderator
                                • Sep 2014
                                • 8569

                                #75
                                The main advantage of the AR15 charge handle placement is it allows use of an ejection port cover to prevent debris ingestion, while sacrificing common ergonomics of the more common charge handle locations and bolt closure assist with permanent attachment to the carrier.

                                With training, it drops to a non-issue quickly.
                                Last edited by LRRPF52; 11-16-2017, 06:35 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

                                Working...
                                X