Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 174

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

  1. #41
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by mdram View Post
    Articles all over the place this morning. A lot of them came up on FB.

    BTW I sort of felt that a 6.5x45 might be a better round than the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39). But the Grendel at least works in our current rifles so less replacements of weapons, initially.

  2. #42
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatAxe View Post
    Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

    http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/04...weapon-system/

    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!"
    The greatest hindrance to a new weapon system is that the M4 is so widely accepted and has become so inexpensive.

    The only way to get a new weapon is to have a new cartridge. That has been the case since the M14. I do like some of the new designs which are very modular. Like the Tavor X95.

  3. #43
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by ahillock View Post
    Based on economics and availability, my guess would be this:







    "What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?"

    The Mosin Nagant, the weapon that has lost more wars than any other.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by n9nwo View Post
    "What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?"

    The Mosin Nagant, the weapon that has lost more wars than any other.
    I think it has won more wars than any other rifle too...

    If we stuck with the cheap and what we already have we would still be messing around trying to modernize 1855 Springfield designs.

    We can't stay with the status que just because it is what we have had.
    Last edited by 85_Ranger4x4; 04-19-2017 at 08:23 PM.

  5. #45
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by n9nwo View Post
    BTW I sort of felt that a 6.5x45 might be a better round than the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39). But the Grendel at least works in our current rifles so less replacements of weapons, initially.
    A fact that almost certainly does not matter. In the last 125 years, the US Army has never adopted a new cartridge to upgrade old weapons.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  6. #46
    Chieftain montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    live in Montana
    Posts
    1,661
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    A fact that almost certainly does not matter. In the last 125 years, the US Army has never adopted a new cartridge to upgrade old weapons.
    Not true. After the civil war we converted the muskets in inventory with the 1865 Allen conversion which is better known as the Springfield Trap door rifle.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jckv3dfwvSY

    Correction, you stated in the last 125 years so you are correct! A case could possibly be made for the M-14 since it is an upgraded M-1 Garand but that is conjecture on my part.
    Last edited by montana; 04-19-2017 at 09:48 PM.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    A fact that almost certainly does not matter. In the last 125 years, the US Army has never adopted a new cartridge to upgrade old weapons.
    1903 was updated to 30-06...

  8. #48
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4 View Post
    1903 was updated to 30-06...
    .30-06 was not really a new cartridge. It was just the .30-03 with case neck shortened slightly to accommodate the particular ogive shape of the spitzer bullet that the Army wanted to use.

    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by stanc View Post
    .30-06 was not really a new cartridge. It was just the .30-03 with case neck shortened slightly to accommodate the particular ogive shape of the spitzer bullet that the Army wanted to use.

    Pretty much a new cartridge since they had to change the chamber.

  10. #50
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4 View Post
    Pretty much a new cartridge since they had to change the chamber.
    Yup! That's more change than we see in many new commercial cartridges too.
    Last edited by JASmith; 04-21-2017 at 10:48 PM. Reason: correct typos
    shootersnotes.com

    "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
    -- Author Unknown

    "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

  11. #51
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4 View Post
    Pretty much a new cartridge since they had to change the chamber.
    Meh. It's a very minor change to the neck length of the existing case. All other dimensions are unchanged.

    It's not a switch to a truly new and completely different cartridge, like the changes from .45 Gov't to .30 Army, and from .30 Army to .30-03 were...




    ...or the proposed change from 5.56 NATO to 6.5 Grendel would be.

    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  12. #52
    This popped up on my facebook feed just now:

    https://www.wearethemighty.com/artic...ay-be-numbered

  13. #53
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    70
    In the grand scheme of things it just doesn't matter. Our ability to win wars is not determined by 5.56 vs 6.5G and making the switch takes money. Personally, if I were re-working US Army Infantry methods I'd push more decision-making down to Battalion level and throw a couple extra weapons into the mix. It doesn't cost that much to buy each platoon a couple specialty weapons and carry a different round.

  14. #54
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,447
    Quote Originally Posted by 85_Ranger4x4 View Post
    This popped up on my facebook feed just now:

    https://www.wearethemighty.com/artic...ay-be-numbered
    “A Capability Gap exists for 80 percent of US and NATO riflemen who are armed with 5.56mm weapons,” weapons expert and former Heckler & Koch official Jim Schatz stated in a recent small arms briefing. “The threat engages friendly forces with 7.62mmR weapons 300 meters beyond the effective range of 5.56mm NATO ammo.”
    “These 5.56mm riflemen have no effective means to engage the enemy.”
    At least 50% of a Rifle Squad's firepower comes from weapons that aren't M4s, and they are belt-fed. 75% of a Platoon's firepower comes from the Weapons Squad, where the M240s are manned in the gun teams.

    These guys making these imbecilic comments need some counter-arguements to their BS, because a lot of people, including those in the military, seem to think that Infantry Squads and Platoons walk around with everyone carrying M4s with no ability to reach out to 1800m (Max effective range of the M240 with plunging fire).

    Any time you insert a dismounted unit, they will often have at least one attached sniper team, who can take anything from M110 SASS, to M2010 .300 Win Mag, and often both.

    You will often cover any movement of the lead squads with the M240s in the tripods, and Snipers set up looking for any ideal enemy far ambush points, so that when someone pops up, they get 7.62 and .300 Win Mag coming their way pretty quickly.

    We also did this a lot with 60mm mortars. You're going to get your bowels shoved in hard if you try to play silly games with a well-run unit that uses what the Army or USMC has provided it.

    A Marine Infantry Platoon looks like a light Company in the Army, because their Rifle Squads are properly sized with 3 Fire Teams, and they task Scout Snipers to support the line all the time.

    But I guess because a few riflemen per fire team are equipped with M4s makes us out-gunned against PKM and SVD. Just ignore all those guys humping 7.62 NATO weapons. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  15. #55
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    At least 50% of a Rifle Squad's firepower comes from weapons that aren't M4s, and they are belt-fed. 75% of a Platoon's firepower comes from the Weapons Squad, where the M240s are manned in the gun teams.

    These guys making these imbecilic comments need some counter-arguements to their BS, because a lot of people, including those in the military, seem to think that Infantry Squads and Platoons walk around with everyone carrying M4s with no ability to reach out to 1800m (Max effective range of the M240 with plunging fire).

    Any time you insert a dismounted unit, they will often have at least one attached sniper team, who can take anything from M110 SASS, to M2010 .300 Win Mag, and often both.

    You will often cover any movement of the lead squads with the M240s in the tripods, and Snipers set up looking for any ideal enemy far ambush points, so that when someone pops up, they get 7.62 and .300 Win Mag coming their way pretty quickly.

    We also did this a lot with 60mm mortars. You're going to get your bowels shoved in hard if you try to play silly games with a well-run unit that uses what the Army or USMC has provided it.

    A Marine Infantry Platoon looks like a light Company in the Army, because their Rifle Squads are properly sized with 3 Fire Teams, and they task Scout Snipers to support the line all the time.

    But I guess because a few riflemen per fire team are equipped with M4s makes us out-gunned against PKM and SVD. Just ignore all those guys humping 7.62 NATO weapons. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.
    Guys:

    100% correct. And I am not sure where this fellow got the notion that the max effective range of a M-4 ends at 300 meters. That is a pretty stupid comment to make and is probably based on Train Fire qualification which goes to around 300 meters. Sure, guys who write such things know the TOE of an Infantry Company. They simply choose to ignore everything that doesn't fit their flavor of Kool Aid.

    LR55

  16. #56
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    At least 50% of a Rifle Squad's firepower comes from weapons that aren't M4s, and they are belt-fed. 75% of a Platoon's firepower comes from the Weapons Squad, where the M240s are manned in the gun teams.
    How are you defining "firepower"? By my count, the weapons mix is:

    Squad - at least 6 M4 vs 2 M249 (75% M4 / 25% M249)

    Platoon - at least 28 M4 vs 6 M249 vs 2 M240 (78% M4 / 17% M249 / 5% M240)



    These guys making these imbecilic comments need some counter-arguements to their BS, because a lot of people, including those in the military, seem to think that Infantry Squads and Platoons walk around with everyone carrying M4s with no ability to reach out to 1800m (Max effective range of the M240 with plunging fire).
    ??? I have never seen anyone criticize the M4 for being unable to reach out to anywhere near 1800 meters.

    But I guess because a few riflemen per fire team are equipped with M4s makes us out-gunned against PKM and SVD. Just ignore all those guys humping 7.62 NATO weapons. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.
    Nope. It's that some folks (PEO Soldier, for example) think it'd be a good idea for all men in the squad/platoon -- not just a few individuals -- to have a weapon capable of 800-meter engagements.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  17. #57
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,447
    Firepower isn't measured in weapons per man, or caliber per man. It is measured in volume of fire per time, plus effects.

    A guy with a SAW has way more firepower than a guy with an M4, which is why our SAWs were at least 50% of the firepower of the Rifle Squad, carried by 2 men. It all makes sense when you fire and maneuver with them and see for yourself.

    Our priorities of work, positions, seniority, experience, maintenance, and training were heavily focused on the belt-fed weapons in every single Infantry line platoon I was in.

    M4s are for cleaning up the mess after we rake an objective over with echelons of fire from organic and non-organic indirect fires, followed by 7.62 belt-fed weapons, then SAWs, AT4s, and 203s.

    Amongst the rubble, Riflemen and their Team Leaders will pull enemy bodies from the dust, while SAW and M240 gunners pull security on blocking positions overmatching avenues of approach.

    If some tard thinks my riflemen should be doing EPW and EKIA searches with 7.62 NATO or .260 Rem rifles, they need to come see me.

    We can let them search the bodies while I put a new Private behind a .260 Rem in the prone, covering him in case of grenade or SIED vest.

    Then we can go over to the shoot house and talk with range control about the walls, then have an operational test and evaluation Platoon conduct live fire drills with .260 Remington or 7.62 NATO carbines in the house.

    I'll stand outside and chuckle.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  18. #58
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,447
    A good way for the layman to visualize firepower in the Infantry Squad or Platoon is how many rounds each weapon has allocated to it.

    Just on my person, when I was a SAW gunner, I would carry:

    4) 100rd nut sacks in SAW pouches or gutted 30rd M16 mag pouches
    2) 200rd drums on vest kit in SAW pouches
    1) 200rd drum in my assault pack

    The rest of my Fire Team mates would have at least 1 and sometimes 2 additional 200rd drums for my SAW, usually carried by the Rifleman and the Fire Team Leader in their assault packs. For 1 SAW, we're talking 800rds on the gunner, with an additional 200-400rds in the team.

    For comparison, I would carry 8-14 mags for my M4, depending on METT-C. 240-420rds. Just 2 of my SAW pouches normally held twice as much ammo as all my M4 mag pouches on my LCE, vest, or IBA.

    For the Weapons Squad (I held duty positions to include M60 gunner, AG, AB, M240 Gunner, and Weapons Squad Leader across 4 different units), we would carry at least 800rds for the pigs. It especially sucked when we had 2-man gun teams and I got to be AG and AB. We tried to have 800-1200rds for them, and we would cross-load within the Weapons Squad, while burdening some of the trail Rifle Squads with linked 7.62 as well, or whoever we were tasked to on Squad + task organization.

    You learn the tensile strength of the stitching on your buttpacks, Assault packs, and rucks really quick.

    The M240 is the center of the Infantry Rifle Platoon's firepower in practice, with the SAWs coming in a distant 2nd. Something about "thud thud thud thud thud" makes Joe happy when his Platoon vanquishes enemy with belt-fed 7.62 NATO.

    But don't listen to me. Buy into PEO and Soldier Systems for more valid info. They clearly know what they are talking about.
    Last edited by LRRPF52; 04-26-2017 at 10:50 PM.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  19. #59
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    But don't listen to me. Buy into PEO and Soldier Systems for more valid info. They clearly know what they are talking about.
    It appears that you misunderstood me. I was not advocating a return to 7.62 rifles.

    I was only noting that PEO Soldier (and other organizations and individuals) want 800-meter engagement capability for all soldiers.

    Actually, I agree with your position on the matter.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

  20. #60
    Chieftain stanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,371
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    Firepower isn't measured in weapons per man, or caliber per man. It is measured in volume of fire per time, plus effects.
    Okay. Thanks.
    If at first you don't succeed, give up.
    Anything that can't be done easily, probably isn't worth doing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •