Forums
Riddle me this - Printable Version

+- Forums (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Riddle me this (/showthread.php?tid=26047)

Pages: 1 2

Riddle me this - LRRPF52 - 11-14-2023

In all of US Army small arms history, when was the last time the Army pioneered a new small arms weapon system that gained wide acclaim, popularity with the troops, and welcomed foreign adoption from our allies and other nations?

I’m mainly talking about rifles, carbines, SMGs, pistols, machine-guns, and LMGs.

Being an avid historian of this subject, I’m drawing a blank for at least the last 5-6 decades, outside of one design that came from the private sector in the 1950s, which the Army Ordnance Board thoroughly rejected, and USAF adopted.

That was the AR-15.

Is there anything besides the AR-15?

M60 was trash, malf-o-matic in every unit I was in that had them.

Minimi is a Belgian LMG, submitted to the Army’s SAW trials.

MAG58/M240 is also Belgian, pre-dated the M60. We finally came around to it in the 1990s for infantry and adopted it to replace the M60.

M9 Beretta was Italian, not well-received.

The only other thing is just an evolution of the AR-15 family when we look at the M4 Carbine and its SOPMOD Block iterations, all of which were driven by relationships between SOF units and Knight’s Armament, Surefire, LMT, Daniel Defense, L3 Harris, Trijicon, and other ancillary systems manufacturers for optics, laser aiming modules, night vision devices, and weapon lights.

Can anybody think of anything?

Riddle me this - grayfox - 11-14-2023

Not often thought of this way, but I would say Eli Whitney and his interchangeable rifle parts ca 1863, that revolutionized shooting in its day.

or the 1911, and John browning’s stuff, didn’t he invent the pistol blowback system? If not then the 1911 still would qualify. And the ma-deuce.
but I’m not the historian you guys are so might be off on a couple things.

Riddle me this - Old Bob - 11-15-2023

M1 Carbine?

Riddle me this - LRRPF52 - 11-15-2023

In the last 5-6 decades, so since the 1960s really.

John Moses Browning’s pistol was developed in the early 1900s with several different models until the 1911 (122 years ago) was submitted to the Army for their trials after the Thompson-LaGarde ballistics studies on cattle if I recall.

M-1 Carbine was during the War. Request for a carbine was made already as early as 1938.

I can name all kinds of huge and successful US Army programs in Aviation, Artillery, Armor, and Medical Corps since the 1960s, but I’m drawing a blank for anything really in small arms.

It has mainly been a continual evolution of the AR-15 family of weapons, primarily driven by Special Operations Forces and their demand for more compact, Low-Light/Night operations and better optics.

The machineguns have all been foreign designs imported and made under license in the US.

Semi Auto Sniper Systems have all been evolutions of the SR-25 and AR-15.

This new NGSW submission is an AR-10 carbine with a 1938 Tokarev-style piston and a folding stock, so going backwards in its basic mechanical core from the Stoner 1955 sleeved internal piston design.

Riddle me this - BluntForceTrauma - 11-15-2023

M2 .50 cal Browning? Or you're not talking about crew-served?

I suppose 7.62x51 NATO doesn't count, since it's not a "system."

Riddle me this - GitU1 - 11-15-2023

Thompson machine gun and the 12 ga pump shotgun?

Riddle me this - montana - 11-15-2023

Barrett M107 50 caliber..

M134 Minigun

Riddle me this - LRRPF52 - 11-15-2023

The 1921 Thompson is heavier than the Garand, had hardly any effective range, heavy magazines when loaded, so lots of squeeze for not much juice.

102 years old. Thompson contracted Colt to manufacture them, since Thompson had no real manufacturing capacity.

They had about 20,000 of them made in 1921, and didn’t sell all of those until about 1937. Sales were really slow, only getting some small deals with the US Postal Service, loaned to USMC, and later sold to the US Navy in 1928 with the 1921/28 model modification of existing 1921 Thompsons with an overstamp.

I went on a Thompson SMG history binge when researching the NFA, and basically most information about it was erroneous, especially J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and the DOJ claims in 1934. They told Congress that there were 500,000 underworld bank robbers like John Dillinger out there with Thompsons, Colt Automatics (1911s), and sawed-off shotguns. They brought in reps from Colt to testify how many they had produced for Thompson, only to learn the numbers were minuscule.

Pump action shotguns were a late-1800s invention.

But I’m really looking at 1955-present. I can’t think of any Army-driven small arms program that has been widely-successful other than the AR-15, which Army Ordnance tried to kill. USAF and Special Operations Forces in the US and UK really drove the early demand for it. USAF wanted it early but was delayed until 1962 as the Army tried to make the M-14 production lines work, but was going through all sorts of manufacturing problems and delays. The Army reluctantly agreed to let the AR-15 be manufactured as a stop-gap until they could get their wunderwaffen SPIW flechette dart rifle/grenade launcher combo developed. Ha ha!

Those things were abominations:

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fd3p4uskxf76...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.wikia.nocookie.n...ipo=images]

Riddle me this - grayfox - 11-15-2023

So, the conclusion thus far is, in terms of firearm design/engineering and innovation, "military intelligence" related to them is, once again, an oxy-moron...

Riddle me this - montana - 11-15-2023

In fairness, it has almost always been private ideas and innovations that military weapons are adopted from.. That said, innovation and new ideas are a political risk, which is why many advanced weapon systems are ignored or shelved until years later..Bureaucracies hate real change..

All bureaucracies are self serving and are like a dug in tick, the longer they are dug in the harder it is to dig them out..Trump is a good example of what happens when a person tries to make real change..

When a new weapons platform is proposed, the threat to institutional jobs, careers, etc will fight back.. The history of the M16 is a perfect example.
Read the book Misfire, the history of how Americas small arms have failed our military by William Hallahan..

The sad part is the American soldier has always been the one to pay for this shortcoming as well as the American tax payer..

Riddle me this - LRRPF52 - 11-16-2023

When we look at Army Aviation, Communications, Long Range Fires (MLRS), Artillery, Air Defense, Armor, Medical, NBC, EW, Special Operations, and Logistics, we see all kinds of innovation and advanced systems that actually work, that get upgraded all the time.

Look at the AH-64 Attack Helicopter, currently in the AH-64E Digital Long Bow Net-Centric Apache.

Look at the ATACM, M777, Copperhead Precision-Guided Munitions, MIM-104F PATRIOT PAC-3, MPQ-64 Sentinel, and FIM-92J/K Stinger MANPADS.

Then look at Radios. Advancements in Radios have been hard to keep up with, from SINCGARS to net-centric systems now with BFT and ATAK.

For those who are gun guys and vaguely see what’s been going on with the SOPMOD Block increments, we’ve seen major improvements to optics, electro-optical aiming systems, LASER Aiming Modules, IR illumination, Thermal Weapon Sights, Clip-On Night Vision devices, free-float, suppressors, rail systems, furniture, triggers, slings, coatings, etc.

But when it comes to small arms themselves, the Army gave us the M9 in the 1980s, failed attempts at replacing the AR-15/M16 family, the recent Modular Handgun System which brought nothing of significance to the force, and is now going backwards with a folding stock AR-10 carbine that uses a 1930s Tokarev gas system and weighs 12-14lbs with attachments. There’s a reason why an X is still in the nomenclature.

I remember when the M16A2 came along in the early-1980s. Rapid Deployment Units in the JRDF got it first, including Ranger Regiment, SF, and USMC, then 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, 25th, 7th ID, etc. When the XM4 finally became the M4, USASOC, Ranger Regiment, SEALs, and SF got it first, followed by 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, and 25th ID.

Misleading articles have said Rangers now have the XM7. Then you see photos like this with guys from Fort Benning Infantry Training Center, not Ranger Regiment:

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2F...ipo=images]

Remember how fast Ranger Regiment got SCAR-Ls, then ditched them only to go back to SOPMOD Block II M4A1s?

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F907h3...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2Foriginal...ipo=images]

Riddle me this - Konocti's Wigwam - 11-16-2023

7.62x51

One could argue more 7.62x51 was fired due to the machine guns.

Riddle me this - grayfox - 11-16-2023

LRRPF52 Wrote:When we look at Army Aviation, Communications, Long Range Fires (MLRS), Artillery, Air Defense, Armor, Medical, NBC, EW, Special Operations, and Logistics, we see all kinds of innovation and advanced systems that actually work, that get upgraded all the time.

Look at the AH-64 Attack Helicopter, currently in the AH-64E Digital Long Bow Net-Centric Apache.

Look at the ATACM, M777, Copperhead Precision-Guided Munitions, MIM-104F PATRIOT PAC-3, MPQ-64 Sentinel, and FIM-92J/K Stinger MANPADS.

Then look at Radios. Advancements in Radios have been hard to keep up with, from SINCGARS to net-centric systems now with BFT and ATAK.

For those who are gun guys and vaguely see what’s been going on with the SOPMOD Block increments, we’ve seen major improvements to optics, electro-optical aiming systems, LASER Aiming Modules, IR illumination, Thermal Weapon Sights, Clip-On Night Vision devices, free-float, suppressors, rail systems, furniture, triggers, slings, coatings, etc.

But when it comes to small arms themselves, the Army gave us the M9 in the 1980s, failed attempts at replacing the AR-15/M16 family, the recent Modular Handgun System which brought nothing of significant to the force, and is now going backwards with a folding stock AR-10 carbine that uses a 1930s Tokarev gas system and weighs 12-14lbs with attachments. There’s a reason why an X is still in the nomenclature.

I remember when the M16A2 came along in the early-1980s. Rapid Deployment Units in the JRDF got it first, including Ranger Regiment, SF, and USMC, then 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, 25th, 7th ID, etc. When the XM4 finally became the M4, USASOC, Ranger Regiment, SEALs, and SF got it first, followed by 82nd, 101st, 10th Mountain, and 25th ID.

Misleading articles have said Rangers now have the XM7. Then you see photos like this with guys from Fort Benning Infantry Training Center, not Ranger Regiment:

Remember how fast Ranger Regiment got SCAR-Ls, then ditched them only to go back to SOPMOD Block II M4A1s?

The problem lies not with generic "Army" per se... it lies with the actual people who are in charge of researching and developing the small arms. As long as they remain in charge, the same lack of innovation will prevail.

Plus, and I add this sadly, I think there must be some deep-seated belief they have in ideas like "tech" wins wars, or "hi tech gizmo's are what we need"... instead of seeking out effective, purpose driven arms and munitions for infantries allow them to defeat the enemy (dare I say, "kill them"?) before them. Infantry does not seem to be very important to them any more... how very wrong could a group-thinker bunch be??? Tools are nice but people, motivated warriors, are what wins territory and wars.

Riddle me this - LRRPF52 - 11-17-2023

With the service rifle, nobody has designed and developed a superior operating system to the Stoner Internal Expansion Sleeved Piston design, when looking at weight, off-axis reciprocating mass, accuracy, and reliability.

There just isn’t anything else that allows for a more lightweight weapon, so the design has stood the test of time this long.

The Army also prioritizes its really smart people into places where you can’t afford to have as many failures, especially Aviation, Artillery, Air Defense, Armor, Medical, and SF.

If an Infantry Lieutenant craps the bed with his radio call and gets some soldiers injured or killed, it isn’t as bad as when a Patriot fails to intercept an incoming Theater Ballistic Missile targeting US barracks and installations.

The Army can’t afford to put much of its brains in the Infantry weapons development, and this trickles up into PEOs who are tasked with small arms vs Aviation, Missiles, Radars, Net-centric comms, etc.

The main thing that has driven Infantry Weapons and systems development over the past few decades has really started in JSOC, trickled down into SOCOM, then some of those things into big green pickle machine Army.

None of the successful advancements are really being driven by the conventional Army when it comes to weapons and ancillary systems.

NGSW is an attempt to break that trend, whether they realize it or not. Every attempt prior to this, from SPIW to ACR to XM8, to ICSR has been a failure that saw only a few ancillary items get brought into the M16 family of weapons after Special Operations units saw them and ran with them early.

SPIW brought forth the XM148 and M203.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fveteransbreakfastclub.o...ipo=images]

ACR brought in the flat top upper receiver, Elcan optics, ACOG, as well as the Colt ACR stock evolving into the LMT SOPMOD stock.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2F66.media.tumblr.com%2F3...ipo=images]

XM8 brought in that stupid grenade launcher that replaced the M203, making the system bulkier and cumbersome.

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fcms.sofrep....ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fsoldiersystems.net%2Fwp...ipo=images]

Riddle me this - Konocti's Wigwam - 01-13-2024

Ok Riddler, I'll bite...but please riddle me this...

The Military is looking for a replacement cartridge for the 5.56. It is not secret that they're looking at the 6.8 Western and the 277 Fury, both fairly similar cartridges.

But those firearms are pretty costly, not to mention much heavier.

So I have to ponder...why not just replace the barrels on the M4s with 6.5 Grendel barrels, swap the bolts out, and use new mags?

The best I can tell, both the 6.8 Western and the 277 Fury are much heavier, so this begs the question...why doesn't the military convert their M4s over to 6.5 Grendel?

There was some weight concerns over mags vs belts for machine gun fire, but by using poly mags the weight was about the same.

So the $64k question is why keep pushing for 277 Fury or 6.8 Western when converting to 6.5 Grendel seems to check all the boxes at less cost and weight.

KW

Riddle me this - JASmith - 01-13-2024

There is undoubtably a well-hidden armor defeat requirement. One can surmise from the case, volume caliber, and pressures indicated that they need a rather high muzzle velocity and heavy slug to meet that requirement.

The case volumes and pressures for the Fury are substantially higher than we see with the Grendel.

Nonetheless, there are arguments in favor of a Grendel or Grendel-like cartridge when one accepts the fact that one cartridge may not do everything needed for all self-defense roles. In other words, the Grendel comes as close as any single cartridge can to meeting most of the needs.

Riddle me this - Konocti's Wigwam - 01-15-2024

JASmith Wrote:There is undoubtably a well-hidden armor defeat requirement.
Yeah, I didn't think about that being a requirement, I will admit that. I'm not very keen on the 5.56, but the Grendel gives the mini-action about as much as you will get out of it, albeit at a loss of velocity.

JASmith Wrote:the Grendel comes as close as any single cartridge can to meeting most of the needs.
That's why it stumps me, it is a better round than a 5.56, IMO, but that is also subjective on the needs. The Grendel just seems like a sweet spot in the mini-acion.

Those Furys and Westerns are not very light. Do they actually offer much better than 7.62x51? At some point one needs to go to a bigger cartridge.

Riddle me this - JASmith - 01-16-2024

One of the challenges is that the US Military is the second largest bureaucracy in the US -- Just behind the entire Federal Government. There are some very large and ossified ones in other parts of the world too.

As these entities grow and age, making "progress" with a not subtle resistance to change becomes a common theme.

Hence we see large and complicated studies to determine "just the right" path forward, but with enough subtle "keep things the same" to make true progress very challenging. The introduction of the AR15 with the 5.56 was a notable exception along with standing up of NASA. Both were aided by the existential struggle with communism. The AR and 5.56 were helped by the most powerful general in the US finding the cartridge and rifle very useful for protecting airecraft and missile sites. The fact that the cartridge and rifle made more sense than the M14 / 7.62 made things easier for the Army to accept the obligation to follow suit

A larger, more significant, bureaucracy tail-twister was World War II. How many new tanks, aircraft and ships were designed, tested and fielded in huge quantities during those FOUR years? Today we see mutiple decades passing between expressed need and fielding of new systems.

Today, most, if not all, of those factors have faded in perceived importance, so we trudge forward studying things to death by committee with little to no real progress.

Military firearms and cartridges have largely shared the same fate because the only "compelling" arguments for change have resulted in tweaks to the existing AR15 or cartridge. This is made worse because the individual weapon is, in the large scheme, deemed not particularly important to war winning.

So, we get small changes that frequently don't connect to the needs of the vast majority of individual soldiers. "Those Furys and Westerns" mentioned by Konocti's Wigwam are an example.

Riddle me this - Konocti's Wigwam - 01-16-2024

JASmith Wrote:A larger, more significant, bureaucracy tail-twister was World War II. How many new tanks, aircraft and ships were designed, tested and fielded in huge quantities during those FOUR years? Today we see mutiple decades passing between expressed need and fielding of new systems.
I have never served, but have worked on a document storage retrieval system used to track submarine parts back in Newark, NJ and track the Bradley defense vehicle, produced by FMC right next to the San Jose airport. I have never knew of that development facility so close to the airport. That app would do E size images (16 x A size sheets). Right by the airport they have a whole test bed, small rivers/streams, sand, etc...I've been into Moffet a few times, but I never saw anything so amazing like that test area FMC had next to the airport.

JASmith Wrote:Military firearms and cartridges have largely shared the same fate because the only "compelling" arguments for change have resulted in tweaks to the existing AR15 or cartridge. This is made worse because the individual weapon is, in the large scheme, deemed not particularly important to war winning.
That's an interesting comment as, isn't each troop issued an M4 ???

I just have to ponder why they don't wedge the 6.5 Grendel into those arms? The cost savings alone is huge. OTOH, when was the last time the Governement cared about how they spend our tax money?Rolleyes

I didn't realize previously, but you're the same Joe Smith that authored the reloading handbooks with Paul Scott and Greg Luli, aren't you? Speaking for myself, I can't thank you guys enough for these amazing handbooks. I wish I had the same type text for the 8.6 blackout and 300 blackout. I unfortunately kept putting off the 6.5 Grendel when I should have probably used it rather than 300 blackout for the hunting I plan, as it is a much more forgiving round. Can I ask you what UC you retired from? My son just went back to UCLA to finish up his Design Media Art degree (DESMA).

Riddle me this - JASmith - 01-17-2024

The M4 is the result of capitalizing on the intrinsic modularity of the AR15 and, therefore, is the result of ”tweaking the modules.

I was first introduced to AR on the way Vietnam and carried a CAR15 in the O1 for many missions. The CAR and the M4 are remarkably similar.

Regarding authorship — Guilty.