Third Generation Battle Rifle

[ricsmall]

I know this isn't feasible for the military, but what if you took a mega billet lower which is already thicker, mill inside to fit larger mag like Olympic arms did for the 22-250? Just a thought. Fire away

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

"'Cause breaking up is hard to do."

Army kills carbine competition, June 14, 2013, Armytimes.com --- ". . . The HK416 had 233 stoppages as compared with 882 stoppages by the M4. The Army later modified the M4's numbers to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring. The SCAR performed better, with 226 stoppages. But the top dog was the XM8 --- a prototype built by H&K that seemed destined to replace the M4 in 2005. Instead, the $33 million program fell prey to a broken acquisition process and bitter infighting within the Army until the Pentagon put a halt to the heir apparent."

[babaganoush]

Army kills carbine competition, June 14, 2013, Armytimes.com --- ". . . The HK416 had 233 stoppages as compared with 882 stoppages by the M4. The Army later modified the M4's numbers to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring. The SCAR performed better, with 226 stoppages. But the top dog was the XM8 --- a prototype built by H&K that seemed destined to replace the M4 in 2005. Instead, the $33 million program fell prey to a broken acquisition process and bitter infighting within the Army until the Pentagon put a halt to the heir apparent."

No surprises, there.

[LRRPF52]

Those test data figures were so skewed, it's nothing funny. They recorded 2rd bursts as malfs even if only 2 rounds were left in the mag, and inadequate or no lubrication was used on the M4's in the old tests against the XM8, which is a horrible POS. The XM8 had limited metal rails and a trunnion mounted in....a polymer receiver. Guess what happens when you run a polymer receiver rifle like that in high-volume? Yeah, its barrel droops and things stop working.

This whole carbine program was boom-era defense contractors lobbying for a piece of the pie, riding on age-old myths about M16 performance, thinking they could easily rig the tests to show their older tech operating systems could out-do the DI system, and they failed to demonstrate a significant improvement. Now that the budget is in a bust cycle, the Pentagon and Army aren't so eager to facilitate a porktractor's pocket-lining, given they are facing cuts all over the force, and lots of soldiers-especially SF types, really like the M4.

[montana]

I find it amusing the powers that be are trying to rig the test to find a replacement for the direct gas system, when they rigged the test to prevent the adoption of it in the first place. The gas piston AR "HK416" was developed for the need to have a reliable suppressed M4 with a 10" barrel or shorter. The direct gas system was failing in this need. There has been no other country that has developed a new rifle system using a direct gas system but many that used the gas piston," Israel being an example with the TAVOR". Israel uses the M4 rifle system but still went to the gas piston when they developed their new rifle system. If this means anything I have no idea since I was left out of the loop. The direct gas impingement in the AR platforms works very well and I have had very few complaints with it if it is kept lubed . It makes a rifle more accurate than a gas piston and makes the over all weight a lot lighter and simpler compared to a gas piston. The direct gas and the gas piston are not perfect but which is better depends on one's opinion.

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Army Killed New Carbine Because It Wasn't Twice As Reliable As Current M4, By Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., Breakingdefense.com, June 14, 2013 (http://breakingdefense.com/2013/06/14/ar...urrent-m4/). To review, in full, U.S. Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) Amendment #3186, "The Need for Small Arms Modernization by the US Army," scroll down seven paragraphs, of the Report, to the blue-lettered prompt, "Click here for Coburn's case against the M4 in brief." --- "In 2007, the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) tested the reliability of the US Army's standard issue M4 carbine rifle compared to three other carbine rifles. These rifles were exposed to an extreme dust environment and then fired to compare the frequency of stoppages. The Army M4 carbine rifle finished last in this reliability test. . . . Tragically in July of 2008, at the Battle of Wanat, a small outpost of soldiers in Afghanistan were overrun by Taliban insurgents and suffered from failures of their M4 rifles. In November 2008, nineteen small arms manufacturers appeared at an 'Industry Day' in Virginia to showcase to the Army the advances made in small arms technology. Despite this need from the troops and the overwhelming interest of the small arms industry, the Army has said that it will be 2014, at the earliest, when our soldiers might get a new carbine rifle. . . . Unfortunately, there is no mechanism, process, or organization where the users of small arms can formally tell the Army of reliability, or other concerns about their weapons. . . . When soldiers notify their chain of command that there may be issues with the way their weapons are operating, they are usually told that the failure is a lack of proper maintenance. When Congress or the media asks the Pentagon why it isn't fielding new small arms weapons, it is told that there is no approved requirement for a new weapon. When tasked by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to access the Department of Defense's approach to small arms and ammunition, the Army finds that instead of procuring modern weapons, more training on legacy weapons is sufficient. While more lethal and more reliable small arms weapons exist in the commercial market and are in use by our elite special forces and allied nations, hundreds of thousands of troops in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines must use the same legacy small arms weapons that are decades old. In the meantime, the United States continues to deploy brave men and women to combat, with the same weapons that finished last in the Army's own reliability test and have high levels of dissatisfaction with their use, as noted by the Center for Naval Analysis. Also, other Army tests and analysis, as well as ballistic testing going back to World War I, show that the current 5.56mm ammunition that is the Army and NATO standard is not the ideal ammunition for our troups engaging targets greater than 300 meters, as they are in Afghanistan. The Army has no plans to follow up its initial testing with any further development of small arms ammunition to replace the 5.56mm round. The current bureaucratic processes at the Pentagon and the Army do not serve the needs of our soldiers of war. . . . Some of our NATO allies, with much smaller defense budgets, are able to outfit and equip their soldiers with new and modern rifles. America should always ensure that when our soldiers are sent to battle, on behalf of the nation, they go with the best small arms weapons and ammunition available."

I came across the above Report, yesterday. And, as I reviewed it, I was reminded to the pertinent thought-provoking discussions I've looked in on, here, at the 6.5 Grendel Forum. I've chosen to attach the following June 11, 2013 Reply, By Guardsman26, because it addresses, what I consider to be a viable option to the long overdue replacement of the 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51 NATO cartridges: the 6.5mm Grendel. And, to afford a desirable increase in velocity, particularly, with the heavier 6.5mm bullets (such as the 139-grain Lapua Scenar, 0.615 BC), I refer to the excellent Thread, How could or should the 6.5mm Grendel be improved?, February 15, 2013 Reply, By LRRPF52, which offers two viable avenues to increased operating pressure capability using the AR-15 length action: 1, such as has been used in the Remington R-15 .30 RAR Bolt-Barrel Extension; 2, such as has been used in the Knights SR15E3 Bolt-Barrel Extension. And, I submit that there are other auto-loading platforms, which are compatible with the 6.5mm Grendel, as well.

With all this talk about the cancellation of the Improved Carbine (IC) Competition, perhaps, at last, the US Army is ready to consider a practical alternative? I agree that the universal re-adoption of 7.62 x 51 mm NATO doesn't make sense - we'd increase the weight load and reduce short-range hit probability. We've tried improving 5.56 mm NATO further with the M855A1 EP, but even that is not conclusively better.

Moreover why persist with either 5.56 mm or 7.62 mm when a palpably better solution is under our noses? Adopting a militarised 6.5 mm Grendel would provide an immediate low-risk, low-cost and easy to implement solution that would offer front-line war fighters with a quantum leap in firepower through increased range and hit probability.

As I've asked elsewhere on the forum, what do we need to do to get the 6.5 Grendel adopted as is or to upgrade it incrementally? The advantage of the current form factor is the ability to fit new uppers on existing M4 lowers. But there are a number crucial questions that I don't believe have yet been answered here:

1. What kind of performance degradation would you get firing a militarised projectile (or lead-free bullet) from a 16" barrel?

2. Is there scope to otherwise improve Grendel performance?

3. Would a smaller 108 grain / 7 gram projectile be preferable?

4. Would a longer cartridge case with increased powder capacity, say 40 grains of powder, make a difference?

5. How much would such a case increase weapon weight?

Some people here seem to believe that the Grendel matches 7.62 mm near enough. Others disagree, but think the difference is irrelevant because 1,000 metres is probably the maximum range for combat engagements and the Grendel performs well at this distance.

I am sure Bill Alexander realises that he is in a strong position to influence future military choices. So Bill what what you do to get the Grendel accepted by the military?

[Michael]

From the same article as quoted above;

“We do extensive post-combat surveys after every unit redeploys from theater,” said Brig. Gen. Ostrowski. “Over the past four years, the survey results have revealed that in compilation over 80 percent of the soldiers are completely satisfied with the M4… and that trend is moving upward [to] 86 percent.” As for the new round, he said, “we have experienced absolutely zero issues with the M855A1 in combat.”

As I mentioned, until it is a significant leap forward, the DOD/DOA will most likely not replace the current generation of weapons. The current fiscal constraints will not allow it. The M4/16 is not perfect, but there is nothing out there that is a significant advance in tech that justifies the expense.

I also find it curious that it is the congress who is trying to shove this program down the Army's throat...a congress that has less than 20% who have served in the military. Can anyone say 'Military Industrial Complex'?

[LRRPF52]

Short-n-sassy, let me translate that article from K-Streetease into a new language called gruntbeancounterease.

Tragically in July of 2008, at the Battle of Wanat, a small outpost of soldiers in Afghanistan were overrun by Taliban insurgents and suffered from failures of their M4 rifles. In November 2008, nineteen small arms manufacturers appeared at an 'Industry Day' in Virginia to showcase to the Army the advances made in small arms technology. Despite this need from the troops and the overwhelming interest of the small arms industry, the Army has said that it will be 2014, at the earliest, when our soldiers might get a new carbine rifle. . . . Unfortunately, there is no mechanism, process, or organization where the users of small arms can formally tell the Army of reliability, or other concerns about their weapons. . . .

Translation: "We place these COP's not only surrounded by, but literally underneath the fields of fire of enterprising Mujaheddin-gone-Taliban (who received better light infantry and insurgency training than our own forces under the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan War), then start talking about the last line of defense, individual small arms, as a weak link in the system to tug at heartstrings in order to grease the wheels of one of our potentially lucrative programs being pushed by no less than 2 major foreign small arms manufacturers, and who knows how many US firms. By highlighting the perception of failure and isolating the discussion to the M4 in Wanat, we might dupe unsuspecting (and uncaring) members of the Armed Services Committees to make rain with taxpayer funds for the new carbine."

News flash: No small arm would have given them a decisive advantage in that battle, especially not one in a larger caliber with less capacity. Here's why: The Taliban conducted lengthy pre-operational surveillance of the stupidly insane positioning of the COP in question, and targeted the crew-served weapons first, before attempting to overrun the COP under covering fire from their crew-served and most casualty-producing weapons, which included mortars, heavy machineguns, RPG's, and PKM's. Additionally, they were attacking from the high ground. That the US unit was able to repel their attack with M4's should be a testament to the weapon's benefits, not failures. They also had SAW's that were running to failure point due to exceeding the design limitations of metallurgy, not arrangement. You can only hose away for so long until a weapon gives up at the weakest link in the system. AK's would have failed much earlier, simply because the handguards will catch fire, unlike the RAS.

Going back to training, whoever the brainiacs are that continue to place these COPs under the interlocking fields of fire of heavy weapons easily emplaced in dominant terrain need to be fired and punished for gross incompetence. Who here is willing to declare that if the soldiers at Wanat had 6.5 Grendels, that the 9 who died would have been saved?

They had received intel they were going to be hit. The locals turned on their irrigation system at 0200 to cover the advance of the Taliban, and the attack coincided with a shift-change of the unit providing CAS to these guys. They were literally surrounded by enemy forces who had the high ground, an excellent plan formed on detailed intel, and cooperation from the locals...and a different small arms caliber is going to make a difference?

This is why people with operational experience and discerning intellect need to be involved in these things, because it seems pretty easy to pull the wool over the eyes of many who are looking to "help" or profit in the company of the ignorant. We have a systemic problem where incompetence and tactical insanity are character traits that seem to be highly-prized, while savvy veterans with logical approaches are sidelined and marginalized. Small arms doesn't even rate worthy mention when talking about Wanat, but Court Martials and institutional leadership failures are at the top of the list.

Oh gee, look what I found:

[video=youtube;Srv99eZpJiA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srv99eZpJiA[/video]

[Variable]

For those of us who are embed challenged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Srv99eZpJiA

Thanks LRRPF52. Nailed it as usual!

[SHORT-N-SASSY]

Lest we lose track of the Topic, here, Third Generation Battle Rifle --- the sad story of a dedicated soldier, notwithstanding --- I would offer the following:

"After almost two hours of discussing the long, tortured, and circuitous development and production history of the 6.5 Grendel, I finally came right out and asked developer Bill Alexander if he thought the Grendel would ever get a shot at replacing the much-maligned 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge.

"'Who knows?' Alexander asked rhetorically, knowing there is no clear-cut, defined path to adoption by regular U.S. military units. 'It's not about good weapons and ammunition, any more, it's a political game.'" --- 6.5mm Grendel: The Round the Military Ought to Have - Shooting Times (http://www.shootingtimes.com/2012/11/16/...t-to-have/).

"Gun manufacturers walk a fine line between catering to a demand for traditional weapons and the need to remain abreast of the technological developments that other industries are seeing. . . ." --- Innovation in the Gun Industry (read: lack of) (http://wxxinews.org/post/innovation-gun-industry/).

[Guardsman26]

I am going to commit a heresy now (puts flame suit on)...

The 6.5 mm Grendel is a good round. As is, it is demonstrably better than any 5.56 mm variant, although somewhat heavier. A reluctance to increase the war fighter's combat load makes it a difficult sell the Grendel as a 5.56 mm replacement. Arguably, the best case for adopting the Grendel, is if it can be made to exceed the performance of 7.62 mm M80 ball in a smaller, lighter package. That way you kill two birds with one stone. You also reduce the training burden, the logistics burden and the need to buy AR15s and AR10s, because a single weapon type suffices.

To get the Grendel evaluated by the military, you need to develop a military spec version than can easily and cheaply be mass-produced. However, as a comparison of military-spec mass-produced M855 5.56 mm rounds versus match grade Mk 262 5.56 mm rounds shows, most military spec rounds lack the same performance as high quality match loadings in the same caliber. So, if you put a regular 6.5 mm FMJ bullet in the existing Grendel case, you will get a drop in range and terminal effectiveness, especially if you fire it from anything less than a 24" barrel. But...

- For EU members of NATO to adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel, it will require a FMJ projectile.

- Most military users will want to shoot it from weapons with 16" barrels or shorter.

- You'll also need a tracer for use in machine guns.

- Tracer rounds are likely to be longer than standard ball rounds so will use up more cartridge volume further limiting performance.

In other words, the degradation in performance that comes from militarising any cartridge is likely to prevent the Grendel from being a close match for 7.62 mm NATO. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Bill Alexander never set out to develop a new military caliber; he wanted to create a more powerful hunting cartridge that would fit the action length of existing 5.56 mm platforms. However, with relatively little further development, the Grendel could become not just a viable military cartridge, but a perfect one-size fits all solution. To do so, it needs the following refinements:

- A purpose designed military projectile designed along the same lines of the M855A1 EPR, i.e. a steel core and copper jacket, to provide good barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness
- The above requirement is likely to reduce maximum projectile weight to 108 g / 7 g (there is no reason why you couldn't have a special 9 g tungsten loading for sniping and AP work) bullet design could easily be made to compensate for a lower than 123 grains weight and so lethality should not be compromised
- The requirement to include a tracer round mandates a longer case, say 43 mm versus the current 39 mm, in order to accommodate the necessary quantity of propellant
- An even longer case, say 46 mm, with at least a 40 grains capacity, would accommodate sufficient powder for the Grendel to comprehensively overmatch 7.62 mm.

All of these requirements can be achieved with a round that is substantially smaller and lighter than the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.5 x 47 Lapua. It should be possible to get the weight down to 17 g for a 108 grains / 7 g loading and maybe 18 g for an 123 grains / 8 g loading.

The downside is that a revised Grendel would no longer fit the action length of the M4 and other AR15 designs. But, it would easily fit the action length of an AR10 platform. The overall weight increase versus a 5.56 mm weapon is about 1.1 lb and the reduction versus a 7.62 mm weapon is about the same.

In addition to giving ordinary squad riflemen a quantum leap in range and effective firepower, the Grendel could reduce the amount of weight carried for the SAW by 25%-30% assuming a total cartridge weight of 17-18 grams versus 24 g for 7.62 mm. Once you make a Grendel with a polymer case, it should weigh pretty close to a brass 5.56 mm round.

An FN SCAR-H in 7.62 mm is not heavy. In fact, it is lighter than the standard 5.56 mm L85A2 assault rifle used by the British Army. A 6.5 mm SCAR-M rifle would be lighter still, but the real weight saving would come with an FN 7.62 mm Minimi (Mk46 LMG) re-barrelled in 6.5 mm.

[Michael]

In addition to giving ordinary squad riflemen a quantum leap in range and effective firepower, the Grendel could reduce the amount of weight carried for the SAW by 25%-30% assuming a total cartridge weight of 17-18 grams versus 24 g for 7.62 mm. Once you make a Grendel with a polymer case, it should weigh pretty close to a brass 5.56 mm round.

I am confused by the above paragraph. The M249 SAW fires a 5.56 round...same as M4/16. Where are you getting the weight reduction?

[Trooper]

I am going to commit a heresy now (puts flame suit on)...

The 6.5 mm Grendel is a good round. As is, it is demonstrably better than any 5.56 mm variant, although somewhat heavier. A reluctance to increase the war fighter's combat load makes it a difficult sell the Grendel as a 5.56 mm replacement. Arguably, the best case for adopting the Grendel, is if it can be made to exceed the performance of 7.62 mm M80 ball in a smaller, lighter package. That way you kill two birds with one stone. You also reduce the training burden, the logistics burden and the need to buy AR15s and AR10s, because a single weapon type suffices.

To get the Grendel evaluated by the military, you need to develop a military spec version than can easily and cheaply be mass-produced. However, as a comparison of military-spec mass-produced M855 5.56 mm rounds versus match grade Mk 262 5.56 mm rounds shows, most military spec rounds lack the same performance as high quality match loadings in the same caliber. So, if you put a regular 6.5 mm FMJ bullet in the existing Grendel case, you will get a drop in range and terminal effectiveness, especially if you fire it from anything less than a 24" barrel. But...

- For EU members of NATO to adopt the 6.5 mm Grendel, it will require a FMJ projectile.

- Most military users will want to shoot it from weapons with 16" barrels or shorter.

- You'll also need a tracer for use in machine guns.

- Tracer rounds are likely to be longer than standard ball rounds so will use up more cartridge volume further limiting performance.

In other words, the degradation in performance that comes from militarising any cartridge is likely to prevent the Grendel from being a close match for 7.62 mm NATO. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Bill Alexander never set out to develop a new military caliber; he wanted to create a more powerful hunting cartridge that would fit the action length of existing 5.56 mm platforms. However, with relatively little further development, the Grendel could become not just a viable military cartridge, but a perfect one-size fits all solution. To do so, it needs the following refinements:

- A purpose designed military projectile designed along the same lines of the M855A1 EPR, i.e. a steel core and copper jacket, to provide good barrier penetration and terminal effectiveness
- The above requirement is likely to reduce maximum projectile weight to 108 g / 7 g (there is no reason why you couldn't have a special 9 g tungsten loading for sniping and AP work) bullet design could easily be made to compensate for a lower than 123 grains weight and so lethality should not be compromised
- The requirement to include a tracer round mandates a longer case, say 43 mm versus the current 39 mm, in order to accommodate the necessary quantity of propellant
- An even longer case, say 46 mm, with at least a 40 grains capacity, would accommodate sufficient powder for the Grendel to comprehensively overmatch 7.62 mm.

All of these requirements can be achieved with a round that is substantially smaller and lighter than the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor or 6.5 x 47 Lapua. It should be possible to get the weight down to 17 g for a 108 grains / 7 g loading and maybe 18 g for an 123 grains / 8 g loading.

The downside is that a revised Grendel would no longer fit the action length of the M4 and other AR15 designs. But, it would easily fit the action length of an AR10 platform. The overall weight increase versus a 5.56 mm weapon is about 1.1 lb and the reduction versus a 7.62 mm weapon is about the same.

In addition to giving ordinary squad riflemen a quantum leap in range and effective firepower, the Grendel could reduce the amount of weight carried for the SAW by 25%-30% assuming a total cartridge weight of 17-18 grams versus 24 g for 7.62 mm. Once you make a Grendel with a polymer case, it should weigh pretty close to a brass 5.56 mm round.

An FN SCAR-H in 7.62 mm is not heavy. In fact, it is lighter than the standard 5.56 mm L85A2 assault rifle used by the British Army. A 6.5 mm SCAR-M rifle would be lighter still, but the real weight saving would come with an FN 7.62 mm Minimi (Mk46 LMG) re-barrelled in 6.5 mm.

Understand that most of the DMR platforms are using a 20" barrel, not a 16" barrel, with the 7.62x51 cartridge. Thus to be compared to the .308, the 6.5 Grendel would have to be tested in a DMR, not an infantry carbine (16" M4). The M110 (AR10) or the M14 are longer barreled weapons. Thus you have the infantry rifle (IR) that is a carbine (16") for 90% of the troops. The SAW would have the option of two barrels, a shorter barrel for patrol (like the airborne version of the M249) plus a longer barrel (x2) for bipod or vehicle mountings. The Marines are not using the SAW but rather the Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR) which is a modified DMR for full auto. The Designated Marksman's Rifle (DMR) has a longer barrel for long range work. No one expects that the DMR would have the shorter carbine barrel.

Thus there are two tests. One for the IR and one for the DMR. How does the 6.5 Grendel compare to the M4 (5.56x45) in a carbine (16" barrel)? And how does it compare to the DMR with a 20" using the 7.62x51? Then how does it compare to the M249 (SAW in 5.56 NATO) as well as the M240 (7.62 NATO)?

We may have to go to a longer case. I am not sure whether the current Grendel specs is maxing out the available space in the M4 Magazine. But then there is little reason to go to the longer case that the 260 Rem or 6.5 Creedmore have unless you plan to use the full sized 140 gn bullet.

[Tony Williams]

We may have to go to a longer case. I am not sure whether the current Grendel specs is maxing out the available space in the M4 Magazine. But then there is little reason to go to the longer case that the 260 Rem or 6.5 Creedmore have unless you plan to use the full sized 140 gn bullet.

The .260, 6.5mm Creedmore and 6.5x47 Lapua of course all use the same 12.0mm diameter case as the 7.62x51, so an 11.3mm-diam Grendel case would still be smaller and lighter even at comparable lengths. Having said that, I would think that stretching the Grendel case from 38mm out to 43-45mm should provide the performance needed.

I doubt that a 140 grain bullet would be feasible, given that the military want lead-free bullets - it would probably be too long to stabilise. Then a tracer version will be required, which is usually longer still.

[LRRPF52]

I won't entertain any ideas here for making a Grendel 3rd Generation Service Rifle (Really a carbine), at least for the US, since it doesn't make a lot of sense logistically right now.

I also don't think the case needs lengthening because if you start with a new weapon system, you can make the action and magazines/feed tray system fit a longer OAL for the cartridge, where the projectiles are seated longer, providing an additional 2+ grs of powder, and you don't need an AR10 action to do that. It does take you away from an AR15 action length by a few tenths of an inch, which isn't enough to make a difference for the few soldiers who can actually exploit the capability, since they can benefit from the existing Grendel as it is in current status.

This puts me back on my broken record track of the need for a new LMG, which would really provide a noticeable set of capabilities for the Infantry Rifle Squad and Platoon, especially if it demonstrated an acceptable set of performance parameters that could deal with the PKM for reach and penetration, with significantly less weight and recoil for the gunner.

[Trooper]

I won't entertain any ideas here for making a Grendel 3rd Generation Service Rifle (Really a carbine), at least for the US, since it doesn't make a lot of sense logistically right now.

I also don't think the case needs lengthening because if you start with a new weapon system, you can make the action and magazines/feed tray system fit a longer OAL for the cartridge, where the projectiles are seated longer, providing an additional 2+ grs of powder, and you don't need an AR10 action to do that. It does take you away from an AR15 action length by a few tenths of an inch, which isn't enough to make a difference for the few soldiers who can actually exploit the capability, since they can benefit from the existing Grendel as it is in current status.

This puts me back on my broken record track of the need for a new LMG, which would really provide a noticeable set of capabilities for the Infantry Rifle Squad and Platoon, especially if it demonstrated an acceptable set of performance parameters that could deal with the PKM for reach and penetration, with significantly less weight and recoil for the gunner.

The biggest advantage to staying within the parameters of the M16/M4 design is that, initially, we could use the current rifles with only a barrel (or upper) change.

The IR would be a carbine, of course. We no longer expect the average soldier to be a long range marksman. That job is reserved to a few within the platoon. Plus CQB mandates shorter barrels or a bullpup.

[LRRPF52]

Understand that most of the DMR platforms are using a 20" barrel, not a 16" barrel, with the 7.62x51 cartridge. Thus to be compared to the .308, the 6.5 Grendel would have to be tested in a DMR, not an infantry carbine (16" M4). The M110 (AR10) or the M14 are longer barreled weapons.

The trend now is going away from 20" 7.62 platforms to 16" for SASS-K and DM systems with telescoping stocks. That 20" barrel doesn't provide the performance worth the weight/bulk, especially when suppressed.

One reason why a new LMG makes sense is that it would benefit even the current "bankruptcy of leadership" climate, since a poor leadership posture with standardized incompetence and lack of relevant training initiative doesn't affect whether a machine gunner will be better-served with a lighter weapon, that recoils half of what a 7.62 does, but delivers significantly more retained energy and penetration at distance when compared to the SAW.

Introducing a new service carbine won't help anyone, especially window-lickers who can't manage the current system, despite so many things being spoon-fed to them. If NCO's aren't being trained in wind-reading skills and how to compensate for wind, a Grendel is only going to introduce more recoil to entry-level soldiers who have a hard enough time right now managing the mouse gun under the current Basic Rifle Marksmanship training, which doesn't receive anywhere near enough emphasis in both entry-level and unit training, let alone advanced marksmanship and leadership training schools.

Basically, if you give an Armani sharkskin suit to a drunken derelict bum lying in his own feces and urine, you won't be able to tell the difference in a day, and you'll just have wasted a pile of cash. Until he can be rehabilitated, you would never waste a dime on him unless you're so altruistic, that feeding into negativity is seen as a hand-up, rather than supporting his self-destructive habit. In this case, the drunken bum still has enough sense to recognize that he has no use for such a suit, being that he's quite content in his current state, which in his inebriated lunacy appears to him like he's on top of the world.

[montana]

Introducing a new service carbine won't help anyone, especially window-lickers who can't manage the current system, despite so many things being spoon-fed to them. If NCO's aren't being trained in wind-reading skills and how to compensate for wind, a Grendel is only going to introduce more recoil to entry-level soldiers who have a hard enough time right now managing the mouse gun under the current Basic Rifle Marksmanship training, which doesn't receive anywhere near enough emphasis in both entry-level and unit training, let alone advanced marksmanship and leadership training schools.

Basically, if you give an Armani sharkskin suit to a drunken derelict bum lying in his own feces and urine, you won't be able to tell the difference in a day, and you'll just have wasted a pile of cash. Until he can be rehabilitated, you would never waste a dime on him unless you're so altruistic, that feeding into negativity is seen as a hand-up, rather than supporting his self-destructive habit. In this case, the drunken bum still has enough sense to recognize that he has no use for such a suit, being that he's quite content in his current state, which in his inebriated lunacy appears to him like he's on top of the world.

So very true. Your use of words and analogy not only get's straight to the point but keeps me laughing.

[Trooper]

Frankly, training is poor. We should start out with hand to hand combat training then move to knife fighting. Those give the basic skills (breath control for example). Then training in marksmanship. Plus we need to train weekly on marksmanship. We spend far too much time on 18th century skills (marching and formations).

BTW, anyone read "Ender's Game"? It is coming out as a movie.

[Michael]

Frankly, training is poor. We should start out with hand to hand combat training then move to knife fighting. Those give the basic skills (breath control for example). Then training in marksmanship. Plus we need to train weekly on marksmanship. We spend far too much time on 18th century skills (marching and formations).

BTW, anyone read "Ender's Game"? It is coming out as a movie.

This is how the Marine Corps does it in Basic Training...close combat is began in first phase, continued throughout. Stance used in Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) mirrors the stance used in combat shooting. Marksmanship training begins about week 4/5 after several sessions of MCMAP. MCMAP is suppose to be a continuous training process done hand in hand with shooting during a Marine's time in. Not sure if all units/commanding officers understand that process..

Enders Game is a pretty good read in respect of training tacticians and strategic thinkers. Not sure if the movie will screw it up or not.