quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Roger.....if I may post my opinion of the 30-06 as a military round.....

IMO the ideal miitary round is something more like the 25 Remington.....or better yet a 6.5mm in a .308 case but of case head about .430 instead of .473.

Something to push a 125 grain bullet to about 2,500'/sec

Something to have a lot more impact than a .223 and something a lot easier to shoot fully auto than a .308.

Something to get almost twice the number of rounds per pound for firepower if needed.

If I sat on a military board and was deciding on the next military round it wouldn't be a 30-06 or a .308. Both are a lot more than necessary for killing humans!

But you see vapo dog the only thing you got going for you is logic and understanding. roger

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
Roger.....if I may post my opinion of the 30-06 as a military round.....

IMO the ideal miitary round is something more like the 25 Remington.....or better yet a 6.5mm in a .308 case but of case head about .430 instead of .473.

Something to push a 125 grain bullet to about 2,500'/sec

Something to have a lot more impact than a .223 and something a lot easier to shoot fully auto than a .308.

Something to get almost twice the number of rounds per pound for firepower if needed.

If I sat on a military board and was deciding on the next military round it wouldn't be a 30-06 or a .308. Both are a lot more than necessary for killing humans!

Right back to the 6.5 Arisaka after all these years.

quote:

Originally posted by Wes Pryor:
Having read the article as well i thought that the author made many good points....

Hindsight is always 20/20, but just because it's hindsight that doesn't make certain points any less valid.

I find it interesting that all these years after the Germans introduced the SG-44, which all assault rifles are decended from, only recently have we seen fit to reinvent the wheel with the 6.8mm spc.

The .223 was made under the theory that wounding was good enough to take a man out of action, and you would tie up more enemy troops as they tended thier wounded.

I guess we may see if the idea of actually killing ones opponent with your first shot takes hold, and the 6.8mm spc becomes the next US standard.

..

The 5.56mm has allways had a MUCH higher kill rate than any 30 caliber!

Tom GA Hunter,
where did you find a temperature that low? Chu Lai, Danang and points north it always seemed at least 130 and 99% humidity. Except early in the monsoon in 1971 up in the Au Shau Valley...the only time I ever wished I had a second baby blanket.
Ahhh, to be twenty-one again and in that good a shape!

Rich
DRSS

P.J.,
Congratulations and good on you. I know that you are personally glad some "chairborne" warrior in the Pentagon decided that it was a good thing to injure not kill. I didn't say it was a good idea or sound thinking, just that it was a major justification (along with the log issues mentioned) for its adoption.

I have a son who recently got off AD, and with the shift to the shorter barreled M4, the problems with the 223 round have been accentuated by lower operating velocities. The rumor is that the legal-beagels nixed the idea of a super frangible round for the M4 which had been purposed to make up for its lack of killing power particularly when used against a enemy at close range.

Now they are back to square one, and apparently giving some thought to providing weapons using a 6.5 or 6.8mm short cased round to special ops personnel who presumably operate in close quarters. (It seems to me that anyone operating in an urban environment is at close quarters, and needs the firepower.)

The new 30 T/C is indicative of the technological ability to put a big punch in a little package. I think that a short cased, 308 bore tossing a 150gr bullet modeled on the Swiss bullet would be just the ticket at about 2700fps. Adjust the "auto" mode to shoot two times and let the good times roll. Kudude

We were in the village of Phue Pong..between An Kei & Plaque ( Can't remember how to spell them)..Foot hills of the central high lands.The 1st month of monsoon I actually wore a jacket & still shivered..I left July 1, 1969, you missed the good days before the Army Brass screwed up everything. I still have contact with 2 friends from there but we haven't seen each other in 20 or so years..We were going on the "Brothel" tour but have got too old & stove up.

quote:

Right back to the 6.5 Arisaka after all these years.

The Arisaka Rifle was designed by Colonel Nariakira Arisaka and came in production during 1898. In 1914 approximately 150,000 Arisaka Type 30 and Type 38 Rifles and Carbines were sold to British forces - mainly the Royal Navy where they were used for training. The 6.5X50mm round was subsequently produced in Britain by the Kynoch company and was officially adopted for British service as the .256 caliber Mk II in 1917.

P.O. Ackley discovered during his series of destructive tests in the 1950's that the 6.5mm Japanese Arisaka was probably the strongest and safest bolt action battle rifle ever built. It survived loads that blew apart Enfields, '03 Springfields and '98 Mauser actions. A.P White Laboratories reported that ... the Arisaka action to be the "strongest bolt action ever designed" (I think we should add ... at the time)

The cartridge measures 6.5x50mm with a 20 degree shoulder (for easy feeding) and saw military use with a 139 grain Spitzer bullet at 2,500 fps and the rifles featured 32" barrels. Ammunition was carried in two pouches, each holding a half dozen five rounds clips for a total of sixty rounds for the average soldier. The Arisaka is the smallest of the 6.5mm military calibers from the same era (ie the 6.5 Carcano, 6.5x55, etc). Norma apparently still manufactures cases & cartridges for this caliber.

After WW II there were ads in the American Rifleman for the rechambering of the Arisaka Type 38 to the 6.5/257 Roberts, aka 6.5X57 Mauser. Early Arisaka rifles were well made and very strong - the Jap arsenals had perfected a sophisticated differential heat-treating process that left parts of the action very hard where they needed to be hard, but softer where they needed to be softer to preserve toughness. As WWII went on, production shortcuts took place to the point that heat-treating was abandoned entirely, and the once strongly made action took its demise.

The whole idea about the 6.8 SPC/ 6.5 Grendel is to fit M16 actions for a conversion job, rather than a design from the ground up in order to save the US Army million of dollars. If it was not for that, the 6.5 Arisaka case is indeed a viable prospect for a military round operating around 40,000 PSI - a good 10,000 PSI lower than Grendel, making it a winner in terms of longer barrel life. So, costs have a lot to do with which direction decisions go and not necessarily what we think is better.

Warrior

I read the article and liked it. Doesn't change the fact that the '06 is a great hunting round and a successful military round. Anything designed by committee will have it's flaws.

The 30-06 was and remains king.

Hair splitters can go the Ackley Improved route and the necking potential is endless.

Pleiku in Jan. and Feb. got down to the 40's and 50's at night. It was jackets and sweaters for guard duty.

R720,

central highlands, right?

Rich
DRSS
stayed in I Corps where it was (usually) warm

Richie:

Okay, lets do this one more time, shall we? A Major (Patton) was given a direct order by the Chief of Staff, in person, an order Patton is certain to have known had just been given to MacArthur personally by the President. You impugned the Major's character for obedience to that order, and referred to him as a "popcorn pimp". Since you then laid claim to being a military man with a blood and thunder service record yourself, I asked you how many direct orders from flag officers you chose to disobey. Since you volunteered to stand in such extreme judgement of the Major, it's a fair question.

Is this the best you can do?:

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
400NE,

until you face a man and put a knife in him, and hold onto him as he tries to twist away from the blade, and feel his life's blood running across your fingers and down your arm as you feel him die, don't talk to me about soldiers and duty, etc. What combat unit did you serve with in Vietnam, or where was it? I don't believe I recall you mentioning that in your post.

This is pathetic, Richie. You won't find any answers in a bottle.
.

quote:

As for Pershing,

Uh, Richie?...We were discussing President Hoover, General MacArthur, and Major Patton... remember? Black Jack has nothing to do with it. I know it's hard, but try to concentrate...

quote:

I would have told him that I was NOT going to tell soldiers on horseback to draw sabers, and infantry soldiers to fix bayonets and advance on their former comrades in arms and kill them if they do not retreat. That's a job he would have had to do himself.

Yes, you clearly implied that, but that isn't the question I asked. Now, quit squirming, and answer the question.

quote:

I really do want to read all about your illustrious military career, my service is a matter of public record, as is my most treasured military award, the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Don't fail me by not responding son...one might say your sorry ass is up for inspection, and judgement right here and now.

Nope. YOU named the tune, SON. YOU play it. Go ahead and tell us about all the times you were given direct orders by flag officers, in person, and how you told 'em to shove their orders up their asses, and stood 'em all down with your trusty pigsticker. Yeah, right.

Major Eisenhower was MacArthur's aide that day, and carried out some unpleasant orders as well. Is he a "popcorn pimp" too?

Have a pleasant afternoon, Mr. Mitty.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

The light and medium machine guns of the time were 30 caliber. I'm sure that the rims of the 30-40 Krag were a concern of the designers, so a rimless round was selected for the new US cartridge (although this didn't seem to be a problem for the British Enfields and Lewis LMG).

Logistics in combat are always a big concern, and the more different ammunition types needed to support the troops, the greater the chance to have things get fouled up and have troops left holding steel and wood clubs, rather than rifles.

Enter the 30-06. It might be on the heavy side for a standard side arm, and a possibly a bit light side as a LMG round, but on the whole it is a reasonable balance between the two choices that would still allow both applications to use the same ammunition.

In October 2002 we had what was known as the Beltway Sniper here in the Washington, DC, area. It turned out it was a pair -- an older man with a younger protege. They used a .223, and killed 10 people and severely wounded three more.

From Wikipedia:

"The shootings finally ended on October 24, when police arrested John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, both Muslims, at a highway rest area off of Interstate 70 near Myersville, Maryland, after receiving two telephone tips from a trucker and another alert motorist."

(snip)

"The attacks were carried out with a stolen Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic .223 caliber rifle equipped with a red-dot sight at ranges of between 50 and over 100 yards. It should be noted that this rifle is not generally considered a sniper rifle even though it is used in long distance shooting competitions for ranges up to 600 yards. The ability and distance of the shots do not meet the skill sets of a military sniper. The word sniper was used by the media. None of the shots involved in the killings were particularly difficult and many professionals in the law enforcement and military communities resented the use of the term "sniper" to describe the shooters. The XM-15 rifle came from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Washington. Bull's Eye had been noted for violating firearms regulations in the past. It had not reported the rifle as missing, as required by federal law."


I think that most of these shootings were one-shot things, although one victim apparently was shot six times. So the .223 was quite sufficient to serve their evil purpose quite well.

Idaho, Definitely Central Highlands. The weather was actually moderate for RVA but still dusty and hot in the dry season. Wet and cool at night during the rainy season. Didn't help that your clothes never seemed to get dry.

"An Khe" and "Pleiku" are the usual spellings for the towns/provimnces cited some posts back.

While I was on the hospital ship offshore starting 18 Sept 1968 a soldier from the central highlands who had been on board for some time was put in the bunk behind mine. He was having follow-up work done through the inside of his left chest and abdominal area incision. It was left open and filled with iodine soaked curlex rolls. As he was on IV's I swung mine out of the way and sat at the edge of my own bunk to hold his lines. They fully unwrapped him.

He had three large ham slice almost double sized palm print sections taken out of his back. One exposed a bit of shoulder blade. One was below that and one exposed a bit of hip bone. All three looked like a die-cut and were square and clean. Just a bit of body fluid and a drop of blood in each. Over the rolling lower muscle went the scalpel. Very neat and precise with conformity to every muscle below.

I asked what happened. He was in some cavalry unit, would have to check my letters to get the number but could be a 72-, 75, or 172- series Air Cav. Army people would know who was in that area around August 1968 which I guess is when he was nailed. Anyway he said he took three rounds in the chest and stomach from an NVA who popped up ten feet in front of him. Also two grenades.

Sure enough there were two .30 cal. bullet holes in his upper left chest to the right of his heart and maybe closer to the breastbone. The third likely went through the now open abdominal area. Don't ask why this guy is alive. I have wanted to track him done from Naval and VA records (as I can guarantee 100% disability).

The surgeon, a Virginia boy, went on to talk of the hills or whatever while using a blunt nosed nipper to cut out yellowish cartilage. In due course they packed him up and rewrapped him.

Read the article. Nothing much new in it. IIRC the 30'06 earned its reputation as a snappy kicker in the 1903 rifle, which had a hard-edged steel buttplate and a short length of pull that put a fella's knuckle right at the bridge of his nose. In the interwar years recruits were trained with a 172 @ 2700, a load designed to extend the effective range of machinegun fire, not to baby the shoulders of new shooters. By the time the 9-10 pound Garand was chambered for it M2 Ball had been reduced to a "mere" 150 @ 2700 fps (arguably no more potent than the German 7.92x57 196 @ 2400 and a velocity we'd be embarassed to settle for from a 308). Would the 276 Pederson have made for a more effective 10 shot M1 Garand? Hard to say, but the 276 might have served as an interesting alternative to the intermediate cartridges designed for the sturmgewehr, the avtomat, and the EM2. In the post-war years I wonder if the 30'06 150 @ 2900 or a 180 @ 2700 fired from light sporters with hard plastic buttplates weren't something of an unpleasant shock to fellas trained with the soft kicking Garand, M14, and M16?

Me, I'd much rather Ordnance hadn't screwed up the conversion of the MG42 from 7.92x57 to 30'06...

.

quote:

Originally posted by 400 Nitro Express:

Nope. YOU named the tune, SON. YOU play it. Go ahead and tell us about all the times you were given direct orders by flag officers, in person, and how you told 'em to shove their orders up their asses, and stood 'em all down with your trusty pigsticker. Yeah, right.

Major Eisenhower was MacArthur's aide that day, and carried out some unpleasant orders as well. Is he a "popcorn pimp" too?

I do not answer for Rich, but even 400 NE must understand, that most military personell living a liftime in the army, never get orders to slaught their own contrymen - veterans the last.

And every man who take orders from a politican to do so, would be i my shitbook, no matter what name they wear or what deeds they have done.

When one can not see the difference between loyality and prostitution, one should be far away from the army.

In the battlefield, to sacrify a few to save many, is quite another story.

400NE,

I'll play the tune son, if you have the balls to sing the song you wrote in the military. Patton did the exact same thing that occurred at My Lai, and I served in the Ranger Company assigned to the Americal Division. Been thru the area shortly after it went down. Like so many combat veterans of vietnam, I saw how the lines can get blurred. But, the line is always there...just like it doesn't matter how good looking she is, you don't do twelve year olds, and it doesn't matter the circumstances...you tell the truth.

Since your grasp of the situation is apparently based only on reading a book or two I will break this down for you from the viewpoint of a combat veteran, who took and gave orders. Under NO circumstances is it ever legal, or permisseable, to use US troops against the citizens of this country. NOT EVER, NOT NEVER! If the President of the United States had ordered me to turn bayonets and sabers against veterans who were assembled to protest their government's failure to pay them the war bonus it had promised I would have told him "With all respect due to you and your rank Sir, I will not lead US troops against US citizens.". And yes, I did once refuse an order from a full bird colonel in a combat situation. We were getting our butts kicked and were outside the fan. Choppers come in, and there ain't enough room for us and the pows. This colonel says "...lose 'em...". We're on secure, so I request that he repeat the order so my team could all hear and confirm. He didn't want to do that, so we put them on the last chopper and we didi'ed about two klicks to an area where the cobra's could cover us til extraction birds got back. I had my day at division, but since he didn't want to repeat what he said on the radio nothing happened...to me. They did ship me off to an ARVN Ranger Battalion for awhile, but it blew over.

It is readily apparent that you have no personal experience with the military, in which case you will never grasp the notion commonly espoused by combat soldiers "...to those who have served, the word freedom has meaning that the protected will never understand...". Whenever the Patton story is told among veterans the response centers around the notion that we would have made that order the last one he ever tried to carry out.

There's a vast difference between ignorant and stupid...you're blurring the distinction.

I do feel sorry for you

Rich
DRSS
Veteran

Up front - I love the 30-06. I think it is the best deer and one of the best coyote hunting rounds period.
In boot camp we were issued M-14's and there were a couple of guys that were scared of them. A couple out of 80, that is. They ended up in the artillery. Those guys couldn't shoot M-16's either when they had a chance to shoot them. I think the sound frightened them.
I do not see how anyone could consider a M-1 or a M-14 as a cartridge with heavy recoil, especially in combat conditions.
I loved the M-14, but I also love my M-1. I hated that M-16 though, what a piece of doo doo. Daisy made as high a quailty BB guns as those first M-16's. That (the M-16) was what was a criminal design in my opinion.

sodakota,

by the time I got to RVN in the summer of 1969 the 16's were working well. I packed an M203 most all of the time, and loved it's versatility and power and range. On one occasion the cannister round saved my ass. There's something very comforting about 42 Ought-Buck when you jerk the trigger.

If I ran the ordnance department, we'd have a 6.5-225 Winchester cut to 1.8 case length, and field switchable uppers and mags. 1/4 of the squad would pack M14's, and at least one 203 and SAW per. Every man would also pack a LAWS Rocket and a 45 auto...and be able to use it.

Rich
DRSS

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:

quote:

Right back to the 6.5 Arisaka after all these years.

The Arisaka Rifle was designed by Colonel Nariakira Arisaka and came in production during 1898. In 1914 approximately 150,000 Arisaka Type 30 and Type 38 Rifles and Carbines were sold to British forces - mainly the Royal Navy where they were used for training. The 6.5X50mm round was subsequently produced in Britain by the Kynoch company and was officially adopted for British service as the .256 caliber Mk II in 1917.

P.O. Ackley discovered during his series of destructive tests in the 1950's that the 6.5mm Japanese Arisaka was probably the strongest and safest bolt action battle rifle ever built. It survived loads that blew apart Enfields, '03 Springfields and '98 Mauser actions. A.P White Laboratories reported that ... the Arisaka action to be the "strongest bolt action ever designed" (I think we should add ... at the time)

The cartridge measures 6.5x50mm with a 20 degree shoulder (for easy feeding) and saw military use with a 139 grain Spitzer bullet at 2,500 fps and the rifles featured 32" barrels. Ammunition was carried in two pouches, each holding a half dozen five rounds clips for a total of sixty rounds for the average soldier. The Arisaka is the smallest of the 6.5mm military calibers from the same era (ie the 6.5 Carcano, 6.5x55, etc). Norma apparently still manufactures cases & cartridges for this caliber.

After WW II there were ads in the American Rifleman for the rechambering of the Arisaka Type 38 to the 6.5/257 Roberts, aka 6.5X57 Mauser. Early Arisaka rifles were well made and very strong - the Jap arsenals had perfected a sophisticated differential heat-treating process that left parts of the action very hard where they needed to be hard, but softer where they needed to be softer to preserve toughness. As WWII went on, production shortcuts took place to the point that heat-treating was abandoned entirely, and the once strongly made action took its demise.

The whole idea about the 6.8 SPC/ 6.5 Grendel is to fit M16 actions for a conversion job, rather than a design from the ground up in order to save the US Army million of dollars. If it was not for that, the 6.5 Arisaka case is indeed a viable prospect for a military round operating around 40,000 PSI - a good 10,000 PSI lower than Grendel, making it a winner in terms of longer barrel life. So, costs have a lot to do with which direction decisions go and not necessarily what we think is better.

Warrior

My comments were about the level of performance not the case design. With the 6.5 Grendel the US is approxiamting a level of performance that was available 100 years ago. The 5.56 was an attempt to get closer to the right solution but missed. Now they are talking about retrofits. Just like the original Trap Door Springfield was retrofit to save the Springfield muzzle loading rifle.

Idaho
The M-79 was a favorite of mine also. I envy your proud service record. 40 out of my platoon (80) were killed in Nam. I still suffer survivor's guilt - I realize now I will never get over it. It is nothing but depressing to think about! The only people I know I killed was with my fingers around their neck and I don't like to think about that either. But then I didn't hate the gooks like I probably should have. Further, my military records were destroyed by fire along with many other people's. I only have my DD214 to prove I was in. I burned my uniform and everything I had that reminded me of USMC except the Rifle expert badge. I have few good memories of those days, Oh yes I made E-5 in short order, including 3 meritorious promotions. I would gladly give up that memory along with the others.

quote:

With the 6.5 Grendel the US is approxiamting a level of performance that was available 100 years ago.

Quite so !

Warrior

sodakota,

yeah, there's that ambivalence about having pride in the man-killing skills that kept us alive, and the trauma it created. I occasionally think "why did I make it back and some of my friends didn't?".
Check out the VET CENTER near you...all vets, mostly combat, and they all know where your head is at. They can get you thru the pain and guilt, if you let them.

Rich
DRSS
Been there, know what you mean...

I have never been in combat in a city.. Just ambush patrols, a few village sweeps & defence of base camp during the monthly almost over run.

If I was in Bagdad I'd want a Winchester m12 with 00. I would not want to be in close quarter "hunting" with a 223 the suggested 264 don't seem much better, I'd want something like a semi auto clip feed 44 mag. We were lucky in Viet Nam, I never wore a "pot"or flak vest in combat, it is hard to see how our troops don't have heat stroke.

quote:

The 5.56mm has allways had a MUCH higher kill rate than any 30 caliber!

That is an awfully bold statement to make without citing any authority. Please provide at least one authority upon which your assertion is based. kudude

I think more people, if they had a choice, would pick an AK47 over the 5.56mm Nato.

Warrior

Granted my M-16 was a piece of crap (to shed the best possible light on it). But I would venture to say if a person shot an AK-47 and the M-16 they would drop the M-16 in the mud and forget about it.
I do have a Remington 78 in .223 it is good for prairie dogs. If I had to, I would shoot crows with it but would prefer a larger caliber say 6mm thank you.

quote:

During WW2 both the Germans and Russian military establishments realized that the face of warfare was changing whilst the Allies were stuck in doctrine learnt from WW1, and this is fact. The Allies were still using "battle rifles" when both the Germans and Russian armies came to realize that infantry interaction was happening at ranges under 200m and that caliber had nothing to do with lethality.

Well, ALF, you may be correct about the idea that the Allies were stuck with an obsolete rifle concept (although in Iraq and Afghanistan we are re-discoveing the need for a long-range rifle with stopping power), I really question if guys like George S. Patton were using WWI tactics!

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
I don't read gun magazines any longer. I tried again to read them but its just the same old same old written around the paying advertisers.

One place that does not cater to paying advertisers is: http://www.gun-tests.com/

Try them out.

Barstooler

I've tried out the Gun Tests publication. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that they only test ONE example of a given item. This DOES NOT constitute a valid evaluation! Even commercial aircraft have individual failures from time to time, despite excellent design, workmanship, and materials......

"The .223 was made under the theory that wounding was good enough to take a man out of action, and you would tie up more enemy troops as they tended thier wounded."

No, it wasn't. One might ascribe this purpose to the .30 Carbine round of WWII, but the reason we got the .223, plain and simple, was the Curtis LeMay was highly impressed with it at a picnic one day, after he blew up a few water melons with a .223 (or a similar cartridge).

He told Colt "if you can come up with a load for that cartridge that will penetrate a GI helmet at 500 yards, I'll buy some for the Air Force." They did, and he did, although he was not technically authorized to make such a contract! Pentagon politics then got involved, and the rifle was foisted off on the Army too.

In order to sell the adoption by the Army, great emphasis was placed on the "small size & weight of the round, greatly simplifying logistics"......

If it had not been for LeMay going to that picnic, who knows what the Army would have used to replace the M14? Notice how long it took the Marines to follow suit.... They knew a great rifle when they saw one, and were already using it!

quote:

The Arisaka Rifle was designed by Colonel Nariakira Arisaka and came in production during 1898. In 1914 approximately 150,000 Arisaka Type 30 and Type 38 Rifles and Carbines were sold to British forces - mainly the Royal Navy where they were used for training. The 6.5X50mm round was subsequently produced in Britain by the Kynoch company and was officially adopted for British service as the .256 caliber Mk II in 1917.

Note that after WWI, Simonov in the Soviet Union also used the 6.5X50 round in an experimental Russian semi-auto military rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
I think more people, if they had a choice, would pick an AK47 over the 5.56mm Nato.

Warrior

You mean pick a 7.62X39mm over the 5.56mm NATO? I would! But I would NOT pick an AK 47. The damn things just don't shoot accurately enough for me, even though the cartridge is better!

Any open bolt military rifle will pick up sand in the bolt area - which makes a closed bolt dersign with a fliupper a good idea. A few countries came up with dust covers on their bolt actions. The only time I actually fired my M-14 in a battle situation was to make sure the gun was working OK after I blew the sand out of it. This was in the Cua Viet river area due east of Dong Ha (and a lot of other major battlefields). It was a coastal sandy area where sand is an issue if wind blown.

We had M-16's also and would take either according to what the Gunny said. At that time (early 1968) the armorer in the mobile trailer was using a small Delta or Atlas 6" shaper to cut a pair of flats on the buffer group tube to cure some service deficiency.

However on guard duty at the sandbag bunkers set up around the camp I think everyone tended to take M-14's. We did seem to have a night kill when one post was allowed to fire on a suspected target in the wire. I like to describe it: I was an djacent post. A flash, bang, whistle, and thunk as the bullet slipped into the sand. Shortly a second flash, shot, whistle, and sandy thunk. A third flash, shot, whistle, but this time a tha-thlusp! sound which was different as if something juicy was struck from front to rear. They found drag marks at the site the next morning.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

Originally posted by Barstooler:

quote:

Originally posted by Savage99:
I don't read gun magazines any longer. I tried again to read them but its just the same old same old written around the paying advertisers.

One place that does not cater to paying advertisers is: http://www.gun-tests.com/

Try them out.

Barstooler

I've tried out the Gun Tests publication. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that they only test ONE example of a given item. This DOES NOT constitute a valid evaluation! Even commercial aircraft have individual failures from time to time, despite excellent design, workmanship, and materials......

True they only test one item, and usually compare it head to head with 2 or 3 other commercial brands. I agree it is not a "valid" test sample, but my point was they do not cater to commercial advertisers. How may items do the commercial shils who write for the gun rags test?? They also buy their test guns "off the rack," no special made, tweaked, or customized items so it is the same product and same chance of failure or success as the guy walking in to purchase the item would have.

I don't necessarily "endorse" them, just note that they are there and don't accept advertisements.

Barstooler

Just a quick chime, I think many would agree a lighter round for 'volume/weight ratio' and a lighter recoiling round that provides better stopping power and range than the 223 is warranted for our soldiers.

As good as the 6.5Grendel is of an improvement, as much as I like what it offers, and would hands down choose it over the 6.8, I found the comment about our military staying with current M16 platform to save millions?

I realize the economics at play, BUT, HOW much have we and will we spend for the Iraq war? BILLIONS?

SO, I have no problem with a little extra money going to develop something new as in a NEW firearm, IF that is needed, to amply handle a round that has PLENTY of what is needed in the battlefield.

Anything from 6.5 Grendel, 260, 7mm-08 would be a nice compromise of killing power, recoil, controllability, and ammo weight savings, though a bullet of 6 or 6.5mm itself weighs less given same BC/SD as a 7mm or 30cal, SO that being said, MY vote if the military seriously chooses a new round, is the Grendel if an M16 platform, a 260 if tactical sniping bolts are to fire the same ammo, which in that case the DPMS is available but likely heavier, I AM NO Small Arms expert in semi/auto rifles, but the 260 would give you far better trajectory ranging much better at LONG ranges than the Grendel, 223, and 308.

NOW if we wanted to have a GOOD compromise, folks I know we are a long way into having the military look into the 6.5G vs 6.8, but seriously, let's get it right this time.

MY choice, would be a 6x47 Swiss Match OR the 6.5x47 Lapua if we pick ONE round to go in Auto and Bolt sniper rifles.

It would be a transition, but GEE, both rounds surely will give a 308 a DANG good run for it's money in trajectory, I am sure actually that they BOTH surpass it by good margin in less drop and wind drift, put in a say 107 or 108 in the 6mm, and a 123 or heavier in the 6.5mm, and WollAH!!!!!!! NOW we have a gun that even gets Snipers past the Grendel with LESS guestimation errors, Not sure on the Swiss, but the 6.5x47 DOES use same bolt face as 308 and 260, SO bolts would be no problem, in fact the Armory's could simply re-barrel M40 sniper rifles, now the M16 platform would be a different story.

Having 2 cartridges like say the Grendel in M16's and one of the larger cases like the 6.5x47, 6x47, or 260 in the Bolts would likely be too confusing and might cause ammo matching issues in the battlefield, SO I am in favor of ONE round for both Sniper rifles, AND auto's.

That said, the Grendel IS very good, and likely adequate for 95% of the need, BUT will it measure up in a bolt gun for long range? Yes, we have 50 cals, perhaps some 300's, but wouldn't the military do well with 50 cal for SUPER long sniping, and the rest of everything in ONE cartridge for simplicity?

My thoughts and .02, open to criticism as I am no military expert, just thinking as logically as I know how with what is available.

I STRONGLY believe whatever we use that 22 cal is too small, and 30 cal is TOO MUCH, and the 6's and 6.5mm's offer the best compromise of power, recoil, accuracy, trajectory, ammo weight, and barrel life with cartridges of those capacities above.

I am sure I will be flamed by many.....I would have started a new thread but since there were over 3,000 hits, might keep the momentum here.

Oh, I never said anything bad about the '06, but I'd rather not have to tote and shoot one all day if I had to be in battle if given a 'more user friendly option', that's just me.

quote:

Originally posted by 6.5BR:
.

I STRONGLY believe whatever we use that 22 cal is too small, and 30 cal is TOO MUCH, and the 6's and 6.5mm's offer the best compromise of power, recoil, accuracy, trajectory, ammo weight, and barrel life with cartridges of those capacities above..

Never expected such a vast and interesting response. Of some surprise is that the .250-3000 didn't even get a mention for a future military cartridge, or did I just miss it? roger