Army Chief : Infantry Needs New Rifle !

[meketrefe]

You don't think 90gr, is a little light?

Light for taking down an aircraft? yes.

Light for for infantry use? no, that is perfect. A 90gr bullet with good ballistics will deliver the same or better as larger and
heavier calibers. Will improve antipersonal and vehicle stopping power w/o going crazy with the weight.

Speed upon impact, trajectory, sectional density, construction ... those are far more important than the grain alone.
Of course the more grain you have the more momentum you have even a slightly lower speed.
Perhaps the 7mm/08 would be the perfect round that would outperform the 308 and 6.5 offerings but still large
for the main battle rifle.

So the need for a compact round and firepower (high volume) is always going to be there.
A 6mm (or even current 6.8 straight) is perfect for that.

I will never forget the weight when I was in the service. Ask many who had military training about what they think
about the weight of the gear situation sometimes over 100lbs. ...yet nobody wants to give up firepower.

In the ideal world we would love to have 300 win-mag power with the size, weight and recoil of a 22LR but unfortunately
physics do not work that way.

Ballistics and firearms is always a world of trade-offs of some sort.

 

[freddy]

Hornadyle.com - 5.56 NATO

Hornadyle.com - 308 WIN TAP®

 

[meketrefe]

W/o comparing the weight of the rifle...

RIFLE CALIBER WT. OF LOADED MAG 22lb. AMMO LOAD
M14 .308 Win 1 lb 7 oz. / 20 rounds 14 mags – 280 rounds
M16 .223 Rem 0 lb 10.5 oz / 20 rounds 33 mags – 660 rounds

Units that go on long patrols (2-3 days) simply cannot carry enough 308 for several engagements
so they need to split the load among others or be resupplied like it happens with other weapons.

Stoner's weight requirements are still valid today. Even more important today.

 

[dsdmmat]

Weight is as important of a factor as ballistics is when choosing a battlefield rifle and round. If you are going to make the Soldier carry more weight in a rifle plus ammo what is he going to drop from his pack to make up for the increased weight on the ammo and gun?

When I was carrying one the basic load for the m16 was 210 rounds (7 each - 30 round mags). I have never seen a Soldier only carry seven 30 round magazines when he was leaving on a patrol. They usually carried 5-6 times that many.

Even if a round is more effective at putting a man on the ground than the current issue round they are not going to be carrying less than they do now. The shots fired to kill ratio in war has not gone down since they started keeping track.

In Vietnam the shots fired to kill ratio was (depending on who you site) 50,000 - 200,000 to 1. In Afghanistan it is 250,000 to 1 according to the GAO.

Whatever we go to it has to be light enough to carry and still be able to kill the enemy or make him stop fighting back.

There is no magic bullet and we are going to continue to shoot more and more bullets at the enemy without killing them. Tis the nature of warfare.

 

[holdover]

The weight to rounds ratio is a little bit fewer rounds, but not by a dangerous amount . There is a little bit of trade off , but not to the extent where it becomes dangerous. One full mag, possibly. (6MM) not 308

The case in point is the heavier AK round, how many times does the enemy run out of bullets? Not enough , This is an overblown concern and more of a sales pitch than an actual tactical advantage. Same with the yawing of the 556 when it begins to slow down. """It was designed to tumble!!""" It was designed to wound"" ""the enemy is on drugs!!""you can carry more per load out. ""nonsense. these are excuses for poor performance.

Joe will still max out on the load , hes not going in unprepared.

One of the main problems nobody is addressing is that the missions are so muti-varied from the mountains of Afganistan to the suburbs of Ramdai that a general purpose round isn't going to do very well in either theater.

No matter what, if your trying to do both your going to compromise something and do both jobs less well with a general purpose round than a specificly design round.

Im sure the best round for penetration and stopping power in an urban area is going to be different than one for a mountain area or open plains area.

the pentagon wants its cake and eat it too.

 

[holdover]

M14 .308 Win 1 lb 7 oz. / 20 rounds 14 mags – 280 rounds
M16 .223 Rem 0 lb 10.5 oz / 20 rounds 33 mags – 660 rounds

that's pretty significant. but how much difference is there from the 6.8 ?

 

[dsdmmat]

The weight to rounds ratio is a little bit fewer rounds, but not by a dangerous amount . There is a little bit of trade off , but not to the extent where it becomes dangerous. One full mag, possibly. (6MM) not 308

The case in point is the heavier AK round, how many times does the enemy run out of bullets? Not enough , This is an overblown concern and more of a sales pitch than an actual tactical advantage. Same with the yawing of the 556 when it begins to slow down. """It was designed to tumble!!""" It was designed to wound"" ""the enemy is on drugs!!""you can carry more per load out. ""nonsense. these are excuses for poor performance.

Joe will still max out on the load , hes not going in unprepared.

One of the main problems nobody is addressing is that the missions are so muti-varied from the mountains of Afganistan to the suburbs of Ramdai that a general purpose round isn't going to do very well in either theater.

No matter what, if your trying to do both your going to compromise something and do both jobs less well with a general purpose round than a specificly design round.

Im sure the best round for penetration and stopping power in an urban area is going to be different than one for a mountain area or open plains area.

the pentagon wants its cake and eat it too.

There is an old but, true saying that we live by: Ounces lead to pounds, pounds lead to pain.

 

[Podmonkey]

Light for taking down an aircraft? yes.

Light for for infantry use? no, that is perfect. A 90gr bullet with good ballistics will deliver the same or better as larger and
heavier calibers. Will improve antipersonal and vehicle stopping power w/o going crazy with the weight.

Speed upon impact, trajectory, sectional density, construction ... those are far more important than the grain alone.
Of course the more grain you have the more momentum you have even a slightly lower speed.
Perhaps the 7mm/08 would be the perfect round that would outperform the 308 and 6.5 offerings but still large
for the main battle rifle.

So the need for a compact round and firepower (high volume) is always going to be there.
A 6mm (or even current 6.8 straight) is perfect for that.

I will never forget the weight when I was in the service. Ask many who had military training about what they think
about the weight of the gear situation sometimes over 100lbs. ...yet nobody wants to give up firepower.

In the ideal world we would love to have 300 win-mag power with the size, weight and recoil of a 22LR but unfortunately
physics do not work that way.

Ballistics and firearms is always a world of trade-offs of some sort.

I think 7mm is too heavy a caliber for full auto fire in light carbines. We need a heavy bullet in a small as possible a package. I'd say the 7.62x39 represents the upper limit of what can be controlled in a full auto infantry rifle but only just. I think a 90gr 6mm would balance controllability, terminal effect and range.
Its gotta be long, skinny and heavy for caliber.

 

[holdover]

There is an old but, true saying that we live by: Ounces lead to pounds, pounds lead to pain.

Listen, your going to hump it anyways. what were talking about here in a 6mm cal is probably one mag less. That's not amassive compromise for a better round. Our enemies do it all the time. Petty sure joe will carry the extra mag anyway

 

[Marine Cpl]

The weight to rounds ratio is a little bit fewer rounds, but not by a dangerous amount . There is a little bit of trade off , but not to the extent where it becomes dangerous. One full mag, possibly. (6MM) not 308

The case in point is the heavier AK round, how many times does the enemy run out of bullets? Not enough , This is an overblown concern and more of a sales pitch than an actual tactical advantage. Same with the yawing of the 556 when it begins to slow down. """It was designed to tumble!!""" It was designed to wound"" ""the enemy is on drugs!!""you can carry more per load out. ""nonsense. these are excuses for poor performance.

Joe will still max out on the load , hes not going in unprepared.

One of the main problems nobody is addressing is that the missions are so muti-varied from the mountains of Afganistan to the suburbs of Ramdai that a general purpose round isn't going to do very well in either theater.

No matter what, if your trying to do both your going to compromise something and do both jobs less well with a general purpose round than a specificly design round.

Im sure the best round for penetration and stopping power in an urban area is going to be different than one for a mountain area or open plains area.

the pentagon wants its cake and eat it too.

Snipers and crew served weapons still field the .308. Designated Marksman (one per squad usually) field one as well depending on the mission.

The firepower never went anywhere.

 

[dsdmmat]

Listen, your going to hump it anyways. what were talking about here in a 6mm cal is probably one mag less. That's not amassive compromise for a better round. Our enemies do it all the time. Petty sure joe will carry the extra mag anyway

I am not arguing one way or another for or against any round. The only thing I am pointing out is more goes into the decision of what round to carry and what rifle to buy than the terminal ballistics.

There are a number if things we are required to carry when we leave the wire. Those things are not going to get any lighter any time soon. I normally carry an M9 and 105 rounds but, I am not a ground pounder.

Unless you are carrying it on your back the decision won't make a difference to you.

 

[holdover]

I get it,I used to carry the 60 , So Im not real worried if PVT Whiner has to carry an extra mag. Your going to do the right thing .

Considering the various types of terrain the Military fights in it would behoove the pentagon to be a little more flexible when it comes to the small arms of its soldiers. One size fits all approach is never the best option , there are various places in Afganistan where the m14 is the better choice , and places in Iraq where the M4 is better than the M14,

For instance , on the open plains of Russia the Ak or the M4 is not a great first choice, The M14 would probably fair better than the M4.
Higher rate of automatic fire at a distance isn't going to be any huge advantage in that environment. Door to door fighting the M14 is to big and bulky .More SMGS should be issued . The division officers should at least have the option to Tailor the weapons to the mission (withen reason of course)

 

[dsdmmat]

I get it,I used to carry the 60 , So Im not real worried if PVT Whiner has to carry an extra mag. Your going to do the right thing .

Considering the various types of terrain the Military fights in it would behoove the pentagon to be a little more flexible when it comes to the small arms of its soldiers. One size fits all approach is never the best option , there are various places in Afganistan where the m14 is the better choice , and places in Iraq where the M4 is better than the M14,

For instance , on the open plains of Russia the Ak or the M4 is not a great first choice, The M14 would probably fair better than the M4.
Higher rate of automatic fire at a distance isn't going to be any huge advantage in that environment. Door to door fighting the M14 is to big and bulky .More SMGS should be issued . The division officers should at least have the option to Tailor the weapons to the mission (withen reason of course)

Carried an M60G for my first 18 months. Then I got to carry two M60Ds and a M10/M9 to my helicopter, glad not to have to do that anymore.

Flexibility in arms would be nice but, even at the division level it is unrealistic dream. We don't have the space for all the weapons we would like to have. Ever since McNamara forced all the services to carry one rifle and one common round for the main issue rifle we have been arguing this topic, I don't think it will ever end. An arms room with everything we could want or a modular rifle adaptable for all areas is a nice dream. When we get Blasters and Laser Cannons ala Star Wars someone is going to complain that they aren't nearly as effective as a Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40 Watt range.

I am really interested in seeing what the Army CoS is going to spec out.

 

[holdover]

Makes sense, Don't get me wrong guys, I love the way M4 handles, and its light weight ,low recoil, fast swinging. I just like the idea of heavier round for it.

 

[Snappo]

Sure, but we had a major war and a couple regional conflicts to thin the stocks.

It's not the surplus ammo. I'm sure they could find people to buy it. The rifles are another problem. What do you do with a couple hundred thousand non-street legal rifles?

They can give me five or ten!

 

[Robin]

With the 6.8 SPC II, re-barrel, new bolt, new mags, and the existing inventory is good to go.
Robin

 

[Podmonkey]

I'll reiterate, 6.8 doesn't have the legs to replace the 7.62x51. If somone can demonstrate that it does then fine, I'm onboard with it. But otherwise there is zero sense to changing to a round that cannot replace both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51. And I think such a round is entirely possible with today's metallurgy and powder technology. I find it interesting that the Russians were so, so close to an ideal compromise way back when they fielded, albiet for a short time and in small quantity, the Federov Avtomat in 6.5x50 Arisaka.

 

[ProgSpear]

I asked it before, and will ask it again... What's wrong with 6.5 Creedmoor? Splits the difference between 5.56 and 7.61, with better ballistics than either one (depending on bullet selection). There's potential for a new (AR style?) platform made with advanced polymers and carbon fiber techniques that could be barreled with 5.56 to use existing stocks, and swap an upper to make it use 6.5CM.

 

[Podmonkey]

I asked it before, and will ask it again... What's wrong with 6.5 Creedmoor? Splits the difference between 5.56 and 7.61, with better ballistics than either one (depending on bullet selection). There's potential for a new (AR style?) platform made with advanced polymers and carbon fiber techniques that could be barreled with 5.56 to use existing stocks, and swap an upper to make it use 6.5CM.

Too bulky, heavy, too much recoil for effective full auto fire from a 6lb carbine. Same beefs as 7mm-08.

 

[Snappo]

I asked it before, and will ask it again... What's wrong with 6.5 Creedmoor? Splits the difference between 5.56 and 7.61, with better ballistics than either one (depending on bullet selection). There's potential for a new (AR style?) platform made with advanced polymers and carbon fiber techniques that could be barreled with 5.56 to use existing stocks, and swap an upper to make it use 6.5CM.

How light and fluffy is 5.56CR compared to 5.56 NATO? I believe part of the reason Uncle Sam selected .223 was because you can carry a lot more ammo than the M14's they were replacing.

 

[Marine Cpl]

How light and fluffy is 5.56CR compared to 5.56 NATO? I believe part of the reason Uncle Sam selected .223 was because you can carry a lot more ammo than the M14's they were replacing.

That and the fully automatic capabilities of the M14 were useless due to the recoil.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Can someone school me on the 6.5 grendel? It seems like a decent idea of a compromise round.

I was originally reading on the ACR and the 6.8 and then started reading about the 6.5 grendel

6.5mm Grendel - Wikipedia

 

[Podmonkey]

Can someone school me on the 6.5 grendel? It seems like a decent idea of a compromise round.

I was originally reading on the ACR and the 6.8 and then started reading about the 6.5 grendel

6.5mm Grendel - Wikipedia

It's an excellent round and I think it meets the requirements I have laid out. But apparently some think it's case heritage, being distantly related to the 7.62x39, DQs it from US military service. I also wonder if it may be just a tad hot n' heavy for a full auto carbine.
I'm basing my recoil requirements off my admittedly limited experience with full auto AKM pattern rifles which I found jump around quite a bit in full auto to the point where bursts are only really useful out to 50 meters or less. 5.56 guns however can lay down effective automatic fire out to an impressive distance, say 200 yards in tight, controlled bursts.

 

[meketrefe]

Can someone school me on the 6.5 grendel? It seems like a decent idea of a compromise round.

I was originally reading on the ACR and the 6.8 and then started reading about the 6.5 grendel

6.5mm Grendel - Wikipedia

The grendel will not make the cut with a 28 degree shoulder. Anything with that kind of aggressive geometry like Grendel, 6x47 lapua,
6.5 creed, 6mmBR, etc... are automatically out and will not be considered for service due to the geometry and on top the bolt size
situation in the AR15.
That is why the 6.8 case was designed the way it is.
These things have been extensively researched before coming up with the 6.8 case.

The chinese ignored all current offerings and went with 6mm and a superior round than the 5.45 and even the 5.56 but IMO
the 6.8 either straight or in 6mm would leave the chinese service round in the dust. Also becase the chinese was made to
be made of steel that is ok but a limiting factor too.

Still the chinese had the right vision to make a step in the right direction.

5.8×42mm - Wikipedia

DBP87

5.8×42mm

DBP87 round
Type Rifle
Place of origin People's Republic of China
Service history
Used by People's Liberation Army
Production history
Designer People's Liberation Army
Designed 1979–1987
Produced 1987–Present
Variants 5.8×42mm DBP-87
5.8×42mm DBP-95
5.8×42mm DBP-88 heavy round
5.8×42mm DBP10

 

[Snappo]

W/o comparing the weight of the rifle...

RIFLE CALIBER WT. OF LOADED MAG 22lb. AMMO LOAD
M14 .308 Win 1 lb 7 oz. / 20 rounds 14 mags – 280 rounds
M16 .223 Rem 0 lb 10.5 oz / 20 rounds 33 mags – 660 rounds

Units that go on long patrols (2-3 days) simply cannot carry enough 308 for several engagements
so they need to split the load among others or be resupplied like it happens with other weapons.

Stoner's weight requirements are still valid today. Even more important today.

Which is why the United Nations should go fuck themselves and we should build 100,000 theater level tactical neutron bombs. All the elimination of bad guys, none of the fuss and muss of knocking door to door. I care a lot more about our men and women in the field than about some shitstain third world muslim diaper head.

 

[Podmonkey]

I've read some things that suggest the 5.8x42 is lacking in soft tissue performance due to an emphasis on AP performance. Its an incremental improvement over existing .22 caliber cartridges. If we could get polymer cases to work well that would give some leeway to upsizing the case size without upping the weight.

 

[meketrefe]

I've read some things that suggest the 5.8x42 is lacking in soft tissue performance due to an emphasis on AP performance. Its an incremental improvement over existing .22 caliber cartridges. If we could get polymer cases to work well that would give some leeway to upsizing the case size without upping the weight.

The Chinese moved in the right direction but, like the Russians, I am sure all components need more research.
Keep in mind they also have a huge driver that is cost that is why the use steel cases and bi-metal or super thick
metal jackets for the bullets. Iron is way cheaper than copper and zinc.
I think that one can make good bimetal bullets but there is not huge research for each caliber and they go
to known recipes that might not be as efficient when scaled up or down. the arrohead design has proven to
be superior and can take lots of steel in several components. At some point we will start to see more polymer
jackets.
I am guessing based on observations but still a move in the right direction imo.

 

[FrankenCub]

Or maybe they should also tell NATO to piss up a tree and start offering different bullet designs? I haven't directly asked any of my friends who were there, but how many rag heads in the current theater were wearing armor? I'm guessing not many. I'm sure hollow point would be much more effective in this situation.

After too many hours of brain breaking reading I'm thinking my next upper will be the Grendel, but I'm not going to war with it either.

 

[meketrefe]

Or maybe they should also tell NATO to piss up a tree and start offering different bullet designs? I haven't directly asked any of my friends who were there, but how many rag heads in the current theater were wearing armor? I'm guessing not many. I'm sure hollow point would be much more effective in this situation.

After too many hours of brain breaking reading I'm thinking my next upper will be the Grendel, but I'm not going to war with it either.

Actually the new 62gr M855A1 as well as the 130gr M80A1 do exceptionally well with armor and hard barrier.
It will be hard to do better in the current portfolio.

 

[Podmonkey]

The grendel will not make the cut with a 28 degree shoulder. Anything with that kind of aggressive geometry like Grendel, 6x47 lapua,
6.5 creed, 6mmBR, etc... are automatically out and will not be considered for service due to the geometry and on top the bolt size
situation in the AR15.
That is why the 6.8 case was designed the way it is.
These things have been extensively researched before coming up with the 6.8 case.

What is about the 6.5 Grendal case dimensions that render it unsuitable for military service? Is it just the bolt head issues from hogging the 5.56 boltface out to fit the 7.62x39 sized case head?
What in your opinion would make a good parent case for my heavy 6MM concept? Has to assume a 6MM (as in .243) bullet. No 7mm! What are the heaviest available bullet weights for the 6mm/.243 class?