quote:

Originally posted by Rob Decker:
Stop wasting my tax dollars. Spend it on marksmanship training.

Our tax dollars are squandered on FAR worse things. the bright side is we as consumers could see some benefit. At the end of the day at least our tax dollars are going to R&D of top tier guns that could potentially make the way down to the commercial market. Was this not how ended up with the SCAR?

Nothing wrong with the 5.56 or the M4, I agree we need a good squad/platoon DMR type rifle in an intermediate caliber, .308 is time proven and we have a shit ton of it but I am not sure it is the "ideal" caliber.

The 6.8spc fits the existing M4 but is less effective at extreme medium distances than the 6.5 Grendel both are better than the 5.56 and those distances but slightly less effective than the .308.....but the .308 weighs a great deal more and requires a new rifle as opposed to a new barrel (or mag for the 6.5)

Also people need to realize only a small amount of troops actually are "pew pew" guys, yes in asymmetrical warfare there is NO front line but does the JAG specialist or IT geek in the TOC need the same weapon as a combat arms trooper?

but my reason question is...

But why limit ourselves? Why don't they really look outside the box and see what can be developed instead of trying to fit an off the shelf solution....yes it's cheaper but will it be better

And for the record I did not stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.....and my opinion don't matter for squat, just an ol' soldier who wants the best tools for our troops.

Also we need to stop trying to fight past wars, the next one may not be i the sandbox fighting a highly mobile and effective peasant. Now a lot of great kit has come out of OEF (I and II) but we have also lost some basic skill sets due the the operational needs in the theaters we were operationally active.

At the end of the day we need to rebuild our military focusing on the needs of the next 10 years ...not the past 10 years

ok I am done....<<stepping away from the soapbox>>

Wait for it...

SEXISM!

Making the combat load heavier just to keep the ladies down.

quote:

but my reason question is...

But why limit ourselves? Why don't they really look outside the box and see what can be developed instead of trying to fit an off the shelf solution....yes it's cheaper but will it be better

And for the record I did not stay at a Holiday Inn express last night.....and my opinion don't matter for squat, just an ol' soldier who wants the best tools for our troops.

Also we need to stop trying to fight past wars, the next one may not be i the sandbox fighting a highly mobile and effective peasant. Now a lot of great kit has come out of OEF (I and II) but we have also lost some basic skill sets due the the operational needs in the theaters we were operationally active.

At the end of the day we need to rebuild our military focusing on the needs of the next 10 years ...not the past 10 years

ok I am done....<<stepping away from the soapbox>>

That's the plan. This is only a interim solution until 2025. Trials for a new cartridge won't start until after 2020. And a change to a new cartridge isn't expected to occur before 2025.

quote:

Originally posted by ed308:

quote:

Originally posted by ARman:
https://youtu.be/9APzYqwXckw

If they want to change something, go with the M16/M4 to a real upgrade in caliber, 6.5 Grendel. It will do better at long range that the 7.62X51mm NATO and have the advantage of also weighting less.

The 6.5 Grendel is a much better long range caliber, and unless the new rifle is an AR 10 variant. That was truly a mil spec. weapon, it most likely will be a compromise.

ARman

From what I've read they are looking at cartridges that have a case capacity of 44gr or higher. That rules out the 6.5 Grendel but not say 6.5 Creedmoor. The other issue with the Grendel is feeding. Based on the case design, the Grendel doesn't feed reliably in a full auto weapons from what I've read.

I've heard about those issues and I think the feeding has been more reliable with the newer elander magazines (the c products jam on me from time to time firing semiauto).

The real challenge is that the barrel can't sustain full auto because it runs much hotter than a 5.56, at least from what I've read.

The Grendel has a lot of advantages over the 5.56 but the military is so heavily invested in the current setup I can't imagine they're going to change that anytime soon.

Dream on

If each of us were king, we probably have a preferred solution for acquiring a new rifle.

Concept of employment/operation, weight, lethality, cost, effective range, reliability, accuracy etc. as well as other requirements like politics will play in the new rifle acquisition process, which is already fairly lengthy in time. Trying to predict or influence its outcome now may be a fool's errand. The acquisition bureaucracy will move at its own slow pace. The exception may be outfits like SOCOM and others that have authority for accelerated procurements.

quote:

Originally posted by relentlessknives:
What about the .300 blackout...or is that the 6 or 6.5 mm
I read the blackout is better than the .5.56 and can be used in the same magazines. Never tried the round ...just asking.

The .300 would have performance/velocity just under 7.62x39, using a 125 grain bullet. You are correct about using the same magazines. As far as better, the .300 can lob a 200 grain plus bullet subsonically, which when paired with a suppressor, can be very helpful when needed.

Maybe it's not just all talk?

http://soldiersystems.net/2017...mbat-rifle-hopefuls/

This is only for 50k rifles. The way I am reading it, this is more for a DMR type capability, not for replacing every infantry rifle. To me, this makes sense, to move squad DMs to SCARs and away from 5.56, but only in a limited fashion.

Just to clarify, the military is not dropping the M4 or the 5.56mm cartridge anytime soon.

They are looking at acquiring a limited number of 7.62x51 rifles to fill a specific capability gap. I've heard between 10,000 and 50,000 rifles. Enough to equip a rapid deployment force for example.

The details of the capability gap are not clear but seems to revolve around the ability to shoot current 7.62x51 AP ammo and the new M80A1 ammo, bigger brother of the M8551. These concerns seem to come from the potential of having to fight an unnamed "near peer" enemy with body armor resistant to M855A1.

Is this the real reason or is it a backdoor to get a 7.62x51 DMR/ SDM rifle out to the troops? I don't know. With a 1x6 optic and a free float rail it could fill the DMR role quite well.

The army is still looking at new cartridges like the .264 and .277 USA but those are years out from being ready for service wide use.

This is an interim or "band aid" fix being initiated because it uses existing 7.62x51 ammo. 7.62 is what is "in the system" and therefore the rifle WILL be 7.62.

Do not underestimate the financial and bureaucratic power of having hundreds of millions of rounds "in the system."

I'm curious no magazine patter is specified as the U.S. Currently had four types of 7.62 mags- M14, KAC/SR25, SCAR and now HK417/CSASS.

One thing I am sure of is it will not be an M14 as they are not suitable for the higher pressures of the M80A1 round.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig209:
Here is an excellent article on the new US Mil 5.56mm ammunition.

Not comparing it to 7.62mm per se, but just an overall article about the improved ballistics.

https://www.americanrifleman.o...dard-ball-cartridge/

Nice to see they have made an improvement.

------------------------------------

M855A1 is an improvement over M855.

But the M80A1 is an improvement over both the M80 7.62 round and the M855A1.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...-m80a1-7-62mm-round/

quote:

Originally posted by Dead_Eye:

quote:

Originally posted by ed308:

quote:

Originally posted by ARman:
https://youtu.be/9APzYqwXckw

If they want to change something, go with the M16/M4 to a real upgrade in caliber, 6.5 Grendel. It will do better at long range that the 7.62X51mm NATO and have the advantage of also weighting less.

The 6.5 Grendel is a much better long range caliber, and unless the new rifle is an AR 10 variant. That was truly a mil spec. weapon, it most likely will be a compromise.

ARman

From what I've read they are looking at cartridges that have a case capacity of 44gr or higher. That rules out the 6.5 Grendel but not say 6.5 Creedmoor. The other issue with the Grendel is feeding. Based on the case design, the Grendel doesn't feed reliably in a full auto weapons from what I've read.

I've heard about those issues and I think the feeding has been more reliable with the newer elander magazines (the c products jam on me from time to time firing semiauto).

The real challenge is that the barrel can't sustain full auto because it runs much hotter than a 5.56, at least from what I've read.

The Grendel has a lot of advantages over the 5.56 but the military is so heavily invested in the current setup I can't imagine they're going to change that anytime soon.

Grendel is a good round but due to the tapered case shape it requires a constant curve magazine (like an AK) for reliable feeding. Same is true of 7.62x39 or even 9mm. This is why the MP5 mags were switched from straight to curved.

6.5 Grendel will not feed reliably in AR pattern guns or mags because of the straight section where the mag goes into the mag well.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
Perhaps they see a need to penatrate personal armor with M80A1.

Looks like this is the case. Not that shocking, when fighting a real military you might want a round that will hit the soft bits.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-wa...-advanced-body-armor

This ^^^

quote:

Originally posted by relentlessknives:
What about the .300 blackout...or is that the 6 or 6.5 mm
I read the blackout is better than the .5.56 and can be used in the same magazines. Never tried the round ...just asking.

"Better" for what? For some things yes but it is a specialty round.

.300 BO was developed as a better option for the niche filled by suppressed 9mm sub machine guns. .30@ BO with sub sonic ammo gave a quiet reliable round with double the range suppressed of a suppressed 9mm SMG (150 yards vs 75ish yards).

With supersonic ammo, .300BO is ballistically similar to 30-30 and 7.62x39. It is effective in people, pigs and deer sized Animals out to 200 yards, maybe a little more. Unlike 7.62x39 it's straight case lets it feed reliably in AR pattern rifles.

.300 BO is not a suitable general issue service rifle round. It lacks both the range and penetration compared to 5.56.

The Army is working in developing 6mm and 6.5mm cartridges such as the .264 USA and the .277 USA but we are a decade away from seeing either in a general issue rifle, if ever.

quote:

The details of the capability gap are not clear but seems to revolve around the ability to shoot current 7.62x51 AP ammo and the new M80A1 ammo, bigger brother of the M8551. These concerns seem to come from the potential of having to fight an unnamed "near peer" enemy with body armor resistant to M855A1.

Unamed..., I took this to be Russia. They are the ones to likely be wearing the new body armor.

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:
Just to clarify, the military is not dropping the M4 or the 5.56mm cartridge anytime soon.

They are looking at acquiring a limited number of 7.62x51 rifles to fill a specific capability gap. I've heard between 10,000 and 50,000 rifles. Enough to equip a rapid deployment force for example.

The details of the capability gap are not clear but seems to revolve around the ability to shoot current 7.62x51 AP ammo and the new M80A1 ammo, bigger brother of the M8551. These concerns seem to come from the potential of having to fight an unnamed "near peer" enemy with body armor resistant to M855A1.

So on top of the bomber and missle gaps we now have a credibility gap? Heavens no!

level IV body armor is rated for AP 7.62x51/54/63 so we're already SOL if we fight a peer army.

There are only about 45k 11b slots in the Army, so 50k rifles is likely some kind of SDM role.

quote:

Originally posted by HCM:
Do not underestimate the financial and bureaucratic power of having hundreds of millions of rounds "in the system."

It's not hard to figure out.

It's a knee jerk reaction to a new body armor that the Russians have supposedly developed.

on the bright side, that would be a lot of 556 to sell off.

Won't happen for a while though.

quote:

Originally posted by ed308:

quote:

The details of the capability gap are not clear but seems to revolve around the ability to shoot current 7.62x51 AP ammo and the new M80A1 ammo, bigger brother of the M8551. These concerns seem to come from the potential of having to fight an unnamed "near peer" enemy with body armor resistant to M855A1.

Unamed..., I took this to be Russia. They are the ones to likely be wearing the new body armor.

They're apparently the ones who have the new body armor but whether they will will they bother to wear is another matter. We have X SAPI but no one actually wears it due to the weight.