quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
The real tragedy of the "rifle after the M1 Garand", is not adopting a cartridge like the 280 British.

...

when fired out of the T48....

All joking aside, that tragedy continues to play out as the US Army is adopting ammunition best suited to protect the air quality in an indoor range and not take enemy lives. The new "green" green tip ammo will cost the taxpayer millions while doing nothing to increase the lethality of the 5.56. (At least the Corps has washed their hands of it and are pursuing the SOST instead).

As far as rifle twist and the lethality of the 5.56: well that one has been hashed out quite a bit. Suffice to say, an inaccurate bullet/barrel combination is worse than worthless, no matter what the terminal performance is and an unstabilized bullet (in flight) is inaccurate. Nobody wants that.
While I think it is safe to say the 5.56 is about the minimum for a military rifle catridge, it is adequate within it's envelope. Any 5.56 FMJ or OTM bullet is practical as long as it hits the A zone above fragmentation speed and has a relatively short ballistic neck. The problem with M855 (which will almost certainly be repeated with 855A1) is that the ballistic neck is 6-8 inches long, not 2-3 inches, which is what 100-150 lb hominids need to take a dirt nap reliably.

Deep in my little black heart, I hope us American gun bunnies continue to hammer through these discussions with zeal. In my opinion, dissatisfaction with the status quo and a hatred of mediocrity is what brought us to where we are.

It's not the Geneva convention, a common misconception. However, the Hague convention under declaration III specifically dismisses the use of expanding type munitions due to being "inhumane" and creating excessive wounds. Read more about this with the infamous dum dum arsenal and their success, and consequent outcry for a ban.
Most certainly a lot of problems would be solved switching to such ammo unless armor is encountered, which is occasional but certainly not normal. The 5.56 works fine for the most part. Sure, we're having problems with bullets passing through at extended ranges, moreso with our carbines. Is there better choices? Of course, many better choices. However this is approached with the logistical nightmare of phasing out, phasing in, training, ammunition testing and requesition, field testing, redoing the manual of arms, introducing potential alterations for specialized billets, etc. As it's been said above earlier, there has been much talk and ink spilled in the search of the perfect weapon. Not a thing exists for urban to open terrain warfare, to falling into the hands of a paratrooper to a scout sniper spotter, or the rifleman.
The reason the M16 works, despite how I loathe it, is that we adapt to it and create our docturne and common training to implement it's usage. We all know how it works, and well, unfortunately with our kinder, gentler Marine vision these days, the training has been taken with only varying levels of interest and seriousness. Regardless, we know how it works, and we're understanding of the limitations.
The FAL is an extraordinary weapons in my eyes, however we must weigh the options. With our current loads commonly exceeding 100lbs of various gadgets and crap, weight becomes an issue. Now as much as I wish I had everyone tearing down the doors wanting to compete against me at the division matches, that's not realistic. We have varying levels of marksmanship throughout the corps. The extra ammo we can carry with the M16 is a plus side to the obvious terminal downfalls. I don't agree with it, but it's a reality of the day.
I do see a lot of self proclaimed experts, or operators as they call themselves, often make it seem as they are the end all to everything and a god, thus aggravating this whole matter even more. And I've noticed everyone seems to have run with SOCOM at one time or another. There's a lot of opinions and loose tongues flying around that will not change a thing. Sure it's fun to listen to it all, get pumped up and watch roadhouse a couple of times. And I do have respect for the contractors who aren't idiots and don't get in the way. For those who have been out with them, you know what I'm talking about. The loud asses who are "the shit" for lack of better terms than freeze in a column. Seems everyone wants a little taste of combat than to come back to create new AR-15 components, walk around in 5.11 gear with a mean face and say they've seen it all.
This is just coming from a double purple heart recepiant who has seem war, is not calling himself an operator or special forces, and calls himself an American who fought for his country and stands by his flag.

I am not referring to the Geneva Convention but to the Hague Declaration, which, as I understand, the USA has agreed to honor.
Peter.

kind of hipocritical that we go to war and want ammo that doesnt hurt our enemy. Screw a bunch of agreements. We are probably the only country that abides by them anyway. Our soldiers deserve to be given ammo that cuts the enemy in half!!!!

quote:

Anything designed to fit the M16/M4 platform will be too small for the wide open desert and mountain terrain of Afghanistan.

what does the experts think about the 6,5 Grendel?

better long range ballistics than a 7,62 and bigger bullet than the 5,56

The 6.5 Grendel is too "fat" a case for the 223, as you loose too much in Mag capacity.

If I remember correctly you only get @21 or 22 rounds in a 30 round length AR Mag.

That is why I think the operating parts of the AR replacement will need to take a slightly longer cartridge than the 223, so they can get enough powder in a little slimmer case to still get a 30 round capacity without going to a too long of magazine...

However some new powder technology, like the Hornady Superforce, might enable the 6.8 to use a little heavier bullet [higher BC, more energy down range] at a higher velocity, at acceptable pressures.

Chet

A T48 [FN/FAL] in either the British 270 [7x47.5mm] or the 280 British [called the .30/280 by the British and loaded as the 7mm short, 7x43mm by FN], would have been a good gun.

It would have been lighter and shorter than the 308 FN.

They actually chambered a M1 Garand in 280 British. The rifle functioned perfectly.
The 280 cartridge showed promise, but in the USA arms development program, the "fix" was in, and nothing under a full power 30 cal would be given true consideration.

quote:

Originally posted by Steffen:

quote:

Anything designed to fit the M16/M4 platform will be too small for the wide open desert and mountain terrain of Afghanistan.

what does the experts think about the 6,5 Grendel?

better long range ballistics than a 7,62 and bigger bullet than the 5,56

The 6.5 Grendel, like the 6.8SPC, 450Bushmaster, and 458 SOCOM, was designed to fit within the constraints of the M16 platform. It is a good performing compromise but a compromise none the less.

We have two basic AR platforms: one designed specifically for the 5.56mm cartridge and one designed specifically for the 7.62mm cartridge. The ideal AR to shoot a 6.5mm cartridge would be one specifically designed around that cartridge. So you need to start with the design of the cartridge first and the 6.5 Grendel is not a cartridge of ideal design.

The M16 magazine, magazine well, bolt, reciever, ramp, receiver ring, and the barrel diameter at the chamber were all designed for the 5.56mm cartridge. The M16 can be modified to shoot 6.5 Grendel but the Grendel is really too fat for what the rifle was designed for.


The Grendel also is loaded to a less than ideal COL in order to get it to squeeze within the confines of the M16. The Grendel is typically loaded with 130gr bullets. It is too short for the 155-160gr military bullets historically used in 6.5mm military cartridges.




I'm not trying to bad mouth the Grendel. I am just pointing out that it is only a good military option if you have no choice but to use a rifle originally designed for the 5.56mm cartridge. If you want to shoot a 6.5mm cartridge then the better option is to use a rifle designed to shoot a larger cartridge.

The short fat cartridges like the Grendel are a pain to load in a hurry.

.

quote:

Originally posted by Lloyd Smale:
uncle sam could save a boat load of money if rather then upgrading to a new rifle an caliber theyd just get nosler to make them a bunch of 70 grain partitions for the existing 556

A lot of wisdom there. The Brown Tip/Optimized bullet is the Barne's 70gr TSX. The guys I've talked to who are using it say the difference is noticeable even to the untrained eye. Because of the bullet expanding, targets are being incapacitated very quickly.
Juan mentioned the RBCD bullets...turns out they are merely ballistic tips at high velocity. We actually did some testing on them with live hogs and the results were laughable. Penetration was about 7 inches but the fragmented like crazy. After a handful of test subjects we cancelled the test in fear of animal cruelty charges.
One of my buddies on his last deployment used the SCAR heavy with SOST ammo and loved it. Deployment before that was with a tricked out M14 and he said he really like the configuration of the SCAR better.
Projectile makes a huge difference. The SOCOM snipers using Mk12's with the brown tip say they like that combo better than Mk11's with m188lr ammo for work under 500 yards. They have recently started using the 168gr TSX in their 7.62 sniper rifles, you can imagine the results that is getting!

Perry

I like the Grendel concept,essentially a 6.5 PPC--

compact, high BC, good short & long range effectiveness.

Apparently several "teething" problems arose in early use of the Grendel, many of which have purportedly bee corrected.

Early on there were "feeding" problems with the case

The Grendel was also reported to be "peaky" in the heat.

It has also had some case "issues" perhaps related to the pressure .

Additionally the cartridge (esp. shoulder/neck angle) design presents some problems for belt fed weapons.

The 6.8 has had less of these "issues".
(and was kind of an "in-house" Spec-Ops development)


The 6.5 Grendel (.264 LBC-AR, 6.5 PPC-AR, 6.5X 39, etc)

with its earlier bugs ironed out--

seems to be getting a hard 2nd look by the military.

I have heard rumblings that Remington is working on a 30 cal round for the AR15 platform. The desire is to create a 6.8 type round that has potential to also double as a subsonic, 200 meter round. It is similar in concept to the 300/211 whisper with a more defined shoulder.

Perry

perry,
that sounds interesting, had not heard that.

on another of their cartridges--

I fired their .30 AR recently,
appears to be a .284 parent case--

seemed accurate enough, functioned well. (only one weapon to fire)

Using of the X bullets in Combat in both the 5.56 and the 7.62 will prove to be a good thing IMHO, but it will be expensive.

I have done a fair amount of testing on X bullets for Law Enforcement.

For Police work they penetrate too much for everyday use, but for Military combat they offer one of the best choices avialable for both incapication of enemy in the open, and the penetration of "stuff" people hide behind.

In the 5.56 it will probably solve the reported problems of the lack of "up close put down" with single hits with Green Tip/SS109.

In the LE world the 223/5.56 has a very good record when used with sporting SP or HP bullets. Plastic tip bullets are very good and offer less overpenetration than most other sporting ammo.
Many US SWAT teams have quit using 9mm Subguns, and gone to 223 AR's for entry work.

The X bullets are a better choice for the Military for sure.

However this will not totally solve the longe range problems.

The quick fix is simply to put more 308 rifles in service where long range shots are in the majority, along with enhanced training to enable the soldier to make hits at the longer distances.

quote:

The quick fix is simply to put more 308 rifles in service where long range shots are in the majority, along with enhanced training to enable the soldier to make hits at the longer distances.

Or issue the Taver in 6.8SPC...

Small arms designers are strange critters...they take a rifle, which is basically an action with a barrel hanging off one end and a butt stock hanging off the other.

Just a brief assessment of firearm design tells you that the barrel is the very heart of a firearm.

Its quality directly effects accuracy and its length, bullet velocity. Barrel makers have spent millions of $$ and manhours perfecting barrels and their rifling...

The butt stock on the other end is essentially a spacer that might contain a few cleaning items.

So when the Powers-that-be call for a lighter, shorter weapon, the usual response by the designers is to cut the barrel down!

Bullpubs are the way of the future...You can have a rifle with a 20.5" barrel that is still as compact as an M4 with its puny 14.5"...That equates to approx 200-250 fps ect muzzle energy that is essentially "free"...

Trouble is all the die hard rifle nuts who have never used bullpups to any degree will cry they don't like how the feel or how they handle..

The truth is, they handle fine once a soldier is used to them.

The primary goal of the Taver design was to build a rifle with a 20" barrle that had better erognomics than the M4, and was better suited to FIBUA. The Israeli's believe they have achieved this and the Taver is now issues to or being rolled to many of the elite brigades.

Is the Taver perfect? Of course not: no rifle design is perfect and all are a compromise to one degree or another.

But with the present powder technology, chopping down a barrel to 14.5" and expecting it to delivery good long range performance is just not realistic...

Pete E

re: Bullpups.

I have shot a Steyr AUG quite a bit. I have used them in 3 gun matches, shot deer and prairie dogs with them and used one as a work gun for a while.

I really liked the concept and I really liked the gun.
I used it for entry and for field work. It was very handy, and very accurate.

I had a Bushmaster Bullpup for a while and sold it. I found it very heavy and quite unwieldy. In addition, the short sight radius made it difficult to shoot well without optics. Not tarring all bullpups with the same brush, just this particular implementation.
Peter.

The Steyr AUG handled quite well.

Its optical sight worked great. Hits on mansized targets to 500 yards were easy, as long as is whas not too windy of course.

Their o reticle was perfect, IMHO.

FAST and accurate.

The AusSteyr was so good compared to the SLR that they had to change the Cross Rifles criteria as too many people were getting them !!!

Great rifle.

When I can get a bullpup with a ten inch length of pull, nine inches of rail in front and a balance point between my hands, I will use one.

I have enjoyed this thread a lot.
Even though this was an Afghanistan thread it has gone into many areas.
My 2 cents.
I like the idea of a larger bullet and shorter barrel for CQC
One of my ideas was to take the existing 223 platform and with only a magazine mod get 7.62x39 performance. This should be able to be done by necking up the 223 case to 6.8 and trimming to the same length as the 6.8 SPC of 1.686". The larger bore equals more efficiency with a shorter barrel and like posted earlier the urban combat seems to be 50 to 200 yards and CQC is well "C"
I called this the 6.8 CQC
Best with 85 and 100 grain bullets
Projected velocities
85 @ 2,900
100 @ 2,700
115 @ 2,600
If you could swap a barrel you could swap to a mission specific cart that would be a good CQC and urban combat round just as effective as the 7.62x39 without losing number of rounds carried in a mag. The mag inside rib to make the 6.8 CQC work would have to be shallower but could still fire with 223 ammo. No big changes but 30% more smack down. This is only possible thanks to the short ogive 6.8 SPC bullets.
Any thoughts?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...-bullet-Taliban.html

Well here's a media story which will clarify the whole picture !!
Not too many media types or responders know what they're talking about !

I've given this some thought, myself. As a life-long noncombatant shooter, if I am ever sent to Fight(not likely) I would DEMAND a By-God RIFLE for the battlefield. Not too concerned with type, weight, length, etc. All I REALLY Care about is that EVERY time I pull the trigger, it goes BANG, No Matter What, and the S.O.B. I just shot will NOT stand there and stare at me, or worse, accelerate his attack. If he does not Go DOWN when I hit him solidly then I am UNARMED. This goes for out to a thousand yards, cause I can hit a man with a 303 eventually(within five shots) at that range. Never shot a .308. YET. If a REAL Rifle is too long and unwieldy for my Urban Combat then I'll sling it and draw my PISTOL. WTF ever happened to the concept of using the CORRECT weapon for the job at hand? We used to have submachine guns every five feet or so in the military, JUST FOR such Emergencies.
As I see it, the only really practical thing we could do QUICKLY and Cheaply would be to swap out the uppers for a 7.62 upper for battlefield troops, and leave the units in Urban areas with their M-4 uppers. As for the recoil, if a .308 kicks too hard for you then you need to Grow a Pair. And PRACTICE.
My Dad was a 17-year-old, 120-lb BAR man in Korea(Lied about his age), and he said in Combat you could be shooting a .577 Nitro Express and you'd never feel the recoil, and seldom hear it fire. Even if you did, you don't have TIME to whine about it, it's Kill or BE Killed. Requisition a recoil pad later, IF you survive, I guessed was what he meant. All you Vets have MUCH more balls than I, for I can't see myself going to War with a VARMINT gun, even though they ARE Varmints of SOME kind.
Also, Grenadier was 100 percent RIGHT. You all are SOLDIERS, damn it, NOT Pack Mules! I thought we had Humvees and TRUCKS for humping gear? I know why you all are such Hell-On-Wheels fighters, you HAVE to be, you're loaded down too heavy to RUN.
I find it incredible that no one has the brains at this late date to figure out a way to reliably re-supply troops in a fight rather than force them to carry on their backs all they'd need for a two-week patrol. What about all these Strykers, and Bradleys? We can't send food and ammo, grenades and bandages on THEM? They ARE bullet-proof, aren't they? Yes, I know, RPG's, but it just seems like we could make it a BAD Idea for a rocketeer to stand up to shoot in the middle of a fight. It just DISTURBS me to hear the SAME problems Today that soldiers have cussed about for over a hundred years.

And for that matter, why couldn't we take an M-14 and put new composite stocks on it, like a glock frame? You know, UPGRADE stuff we have and know WORKS? BTW, a POX on the DOD for ever switching to a 9mm pistol. That was NOTHING but kissing Euro ass. My 100-pound skinny-girl cousin shoots her .45 Long Colt JUST FINE.

How are you going to drive a Bradley or an armored hummvee up a mountain with a load of ammo in it? You're not. Helicopter resupply is problematic because of weather, altitude and enemy fire.

You should probably take a good long time to think and listen and get back to us later.

By the way, it is extremely rare for anyone to use a handgun in military combat. I can only think of one person I've spoken to who fired a pistol in anger and he was satisfied with 9mm because he was holding it to the guys head when he pulled the trigger.

quote:

Originally posted by KY Jim:
And for that matter, why couldn't we take an M-14 and put new composite stocks on it, like a glock frame? You know, UPGRADE stuff we have and know WORKS? BTW, a POX on the DOD for ever switching to a 9mm pistol. That was NOTHING but kissing Euro ass. My 100-pound skinny-girl cousin shoots her .45 Long Colt JUST FINE.

Many issued M14s back in the '60s were "upgraded" with composite stocks. They shot fine and were hell for stout also. Perhaps we should take a hard look at why, today, our troops can not hump the necessary ammo and supplies up the mountains with real rifles and cartridges that are effective in that scenario.

Our forfathers did not too long ago and kicked ass all over the world in mountains. So why can't our soldiers do it today? Body armor, 40+ lbs of it is the reason. There are no commanders with cahones enough to say that with BA their soldiers can not fight effectively in the mountains simply because they can not get to the fight. Thus the commanders remain PC about it and our soldiers seize the low ground and ride up and down the roads waiting to get blown up just like the Russians did. We are going to lose just like the Russians did because we can not carry the fight to the enemy in the mountains and most of Afghanistan is mountains. The enemy runs around the mountains with all sorts of weapons but we don't. The answer is we weigh our troops down with too much gear, mostly BA. Yes I know BA can save some lives but I wonder how many (I have been to this war and have seen all of this 1st hand BTW) lives and injuries are sustained, especially from IEDs, because our soldiers are to encumbered by BA and are essentially chained to vehicles because of it. The enemy has the initive, we do not. A defensive war can not be won and driving up and down roads in convoys is simply a mobile defensive war.

Winning the hearts and minds of the population is important, if you really ever do that but you must also seek out and destroy the enemy and his capability to make war where ever he is. The mission of infantry used to be to close with and kill the enemy. Somewhere along the way in this concept of "limited" war we have forgotten that.

Mobility for the infantryman is the key to closing with the enemy and killing him. Without mobility survival and winning on any modern battlefield is impossible. We have taken that mobility away from our infantrymen with too much BA for the sake of PC and commanders fear of politicians. Johnny whines that his truck had no armor so we spend billions on armored vehicles for every one and on BA for the individual much to their detriment. Someone should have told johnny that if he wanted an armored vehicle he should have enlisted in tanks. Someone should tell commanders that the more armor johnny wears the bigger the IEDs get and the more powerful the SAF gets. Oh crap....don't get me started.....

Larry Gibson

Jim, the only good reason to do an extended patrol on foot is you can't get there with a vehicle. Most of our extended patrols are planned so they can link up with wheeled resupply every 2-3 days. Afghanstan is hot rugged country, and the one think you can't carry enough of over there is water.

As for recoil on the .308, it has less to do about growing a pair, and more to do with the speed of your follow up shot, and control on full auto.

As far as going house to house with a pistol? Don't take a knife to a gun fight, and don't take a pistol to a rifle fight....especially if that pistol is a 9mm loaded with hardball.

Larry;

Indeed these are complex situations; all combat is. Boiled down to the bare essentiuals, the winning team must be the one that can stick bullets (any will do within context) into the bodies of the other team.

Due to teh nature of war, one weapon will not work-hence the several key weapons in every squad, teh carbines/rifles, the light MGs, the Grenade launchers and the ligth/med AT stuff (multiple uses).

Sure, we could run faster, cary more "other" stuff if we drope dthe IBA, but that may be too spartan for many to acept in the end (both trooper and everyone else).

Alas, we want Leonidas and his 300, but also want them to come home....

I especialy like readsing the rants about how we should do it from those (some who at least state early on that they) never did the work themselves. I guess they stayed at a Holiday Inn near Bragg or Hurlburt or Coronado....

Best;

sorry about my hasty spelling-keyboard issues I guess.

The infantry as a whole could use a better service round, I agree that the team that puts more holes in the other team wins, that being said we were not always shooting at human targets. More times than not it was stopping vehicles, shooting into buildings and cover and for this we all new
the 240B or the M14 was better, I find it hard to believe we have made it this far holding on to the M16/M4. ALAS the first point is the one I believe
that is possible to do, it would not make sense to me to train the entire force on how to use a more effective rifle/caliber, train the soldiers in the field to be marksman anstead of sending them to the ranges 1 or twice a year and expecting
them to shoot targets off mountain sides a click away, and when you get them trained give a rifle/caliber combination that can give them the results
that the training is capable of producing. Just my 2 pennys.

Would an answer to have been to have retained 7.6mm NATO but issued as well as the full size 308" bullet of 155 grains a military version of the "SABOT" load of the 1980's using an FMJ 223" bullet in a plastic sabot?

I'm sure that someone could have worked out a load for the "SABOT" that out to 300 yards duplicated for practical purposes the sight setting and trajectory of the .308" bullet loading.

Then the best of both worlds? A light load for close combat with minimal recoil but a heavy bullet load (and a decent tracer) for longer ranges of targets in cover or vehicles?

I'm really surprised that nobody ever seems to have, apparently, tried those "SABOT" rounds in an SLR/FN FAL.

There was also some expermental 308 rounds that held 2 bullets. The rear bullet had its base offset 2 degrees if I remember correctly, to increase its dispersion.

They also experimented with them on the 5.56 round, about the same time they were experimenting with the flechette round. The flechette's had almost zero drop out to 500 yards, but they made a flechete sized hole going in, and same size hole going out. You could shoot someone in the heart, and the hole would be so small you might not kill them...