quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

This is how its done now and previously, on paper anyway.

If a .308 is integrated at the team or squad level now, isn't it in the form of a DMR; not necessarily a "battle rifle"?

A DMR configuration will lack the broader applicability of a shorter, lighter, potentially suppressed, lower magnification setup.

Not necessarily, you have the M249, which is 1 round, 2 platforms. But outside of that you have the MK46, MK48, M240 which would be 2 calibers, 2 platforms. I'm not calling ANY of these battle rifles.

Is there some reason team or squad level integration of a AR10 carbine isn't a good idea?

I have seen and read about shorter AR10 rifles that KAC has built for Delta Force. The aforementioned LMT, Wilson, DD, etc are following suit. It seems the idea is viable, and at least some professionals think it's worthwhile.

If the .308 is as meaningful as 5.56 detractors would have us believe, why isn't there more of a push for it in the contemporary rifle (AR10) realm, outside the confines of a DMR role?

I think, based on these recent conversations, that it is a good idea.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Is there some reason team or squad level integration of a AR10 carbine isn't a good idea?

I have seen and read about shorter AR10 rifles that KAC has built for Delta Force. The aforementioned LMT, Wilson, DD, etc are following suit. It seems the idea is viable, and at least some professionals think it's worthwhile.

If the .308 is as meaningful as 5.56 detractors would have us believe, why isn't there more of a push for it in the contemporary rifle (AR10) realm, outside the confines of a DMR role?

I think, based on these recent conversations, that it is a good idea.

It is a good idea and it’s already in use in that role. The US does it. The Brits do it.

On the infantry and airborne infantry team and squad level, in a configuration that favors "assault", rather than DMR?

I know the HK 417 is becoming more integral, but it's still in more of a DMR configuration. I think it's got the 1-8 VCOG, what looks to be a 16" or 18" barrel and a silencer. That's a chunk of a gun in general, too. Why didn't they use a damn AR10? Could HK really have offered the same or better performance than KAC, at a cheaper price?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
On the infantry and airborne infantry team and squad level, in a configuration that favors "assault", rather than DMR?

I know the HK 417 is becoming more integral, but it's still in more of a DMR configuration. I think it's got the 1-8 VCOG, what looks to be a 16" or 18" barrel and a silencer. That's a chunk of a gun in general, too. Why didn't they use a damn AR10? Could HK really have offered the same or better performance than KAC, at a cheaper price?

Don't try and understand the acquisition process. It'll sprain your brain. Most insiders don't understand it either. The few that do, are wizards. :-)

Honestly, I don't know why the conversion of the M110 (KAC) went out to bid as new weapon M110A1 (H&K won) when KAC offered to do the retro-fit of the shorter barrel and collapsing stock at a reasonable price. KAC had developed that package for an element in the DA already.

An interesting article on the DMR role:

https://americanshootingjourna...designated-marksman/

I've met Ash Hess and I got to shoot one of his Quantified performance matches, he is a good shot and good dude.

A little more on Ash
https://www.thefirearmblog.com...r-match-with-an-sbr/

It's such a confusing topic because even Mr. Hess, after saying it's not about just 300M-600M, spends the majority of the article talking about the 300M-600M ability of the DM. He leads by saying everyone's got it wrong, but then (seemingly unintentionally) gives the perfect example of why everyone has the wrong impression, by talking about the more sniper-ish quality of the DM.

This conversation has been about the power offered by the .308, it's importance on the modern battlefield, and how it can be integrated into squads and teams in a bigger way than (maybe) one DM per squad.

His outlook on DM training for all is a darn good idea, for the reasons he mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It's such a confusing topic because even Mr. Hess, after saying it's not about just 300M-600M, spends the majority of the article talking about the 300M-600M ability of the DM. He leads by saying everyone's got it wrong, but then (seemingly unintentionally) gives the perfect example of why everyone has the wrong impression, by talking about the more sniper-ish quality of the DM.

This conversation has been about the power offered by the .308, it's importance on the modern battlefield, and how it can be integrated into squads and teams in a bigger way than (maybe) one DM per squad.

His outlook on DM training for all is a darn good idea, for the reasons he mentioned.

I'm glad you spotted the ranges and employment.

Is it possible that 7.62mm's strengths are not in the range bands and areas that the Army is projecting/anticipating it's upcoming conflicts? Is the Army making the right assumptions on what future combat will look like? They don't have the best track record.

I'd wager that alot of folks are in "Squat/Hold" waiting to see what the new 6.8mm cartridge does in real life.

If you are up for additional reading, check out Black Rifle 1. It's got a couple chapters on why 5.56 and the thought that went into it. For a good Counterpoint, read Jim Shatz's article "Do we need a new service rifle cartridge" published in 2012. It's a little dated, but a great article.

I am partway through a Larry Vickers AR10/SR25 podcast. He has an early GWOT Delta-surplus SR25 in his collection. The lower is ragged, because it got used a lot. The long-barrel upper he has on it isn't as beat up, because it hardly got used; the operator primarily used a 16" upper.

...Edited to add...I went ahead and equipped my spare Colt 901. I intend to use it for a little while, to tinker with the modern battle rifle concept. I won't be able to really mess with it until I get more mags and more ammo. My only application for the caliber so far has been in my other 901, which serves as my DMR. So, I have a limited amount of the ammo it prefers, and only a few mags. I have a rig that I can make work.

I equipped the rifle with an Elcan SpecterDR 1x/4x optic, Steiner OTAL IR aiming laser, Surefire Vampire white/IR light, a pressure pad for both of those items, and an AAC 762-SDN6. In a perfect world the barrel would be a bit shorter, but it is what it is. My assembled "modern battle rifle" Colt 901 weighs fourteen pounds with a loaded 20rd mag, and is forty inches long, with my stock at my preferred position. Obviously it's bigger and heavier than any 5.56 gun I use, but that's the idea: to see if the size and weight are doable, while the gun is equipped to maximize it's capability.

People moan about lights, lasers, and foregrips, when they talk about people bolting a "bunch of crap" to their rifles. Those little things really don't weigh much. The silencer makes the biggest difference. I am a silencer believer though, so it's non-negotiable.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

I do not believe the 7.62 to be versatile enough for the modern mission sets. A lot of units are jockeying to be leaner, lighter and faster. The Marine Corps as an example is pushing the MEU(SOC) concept further and harder to where the line between an infantry unit and a reconnaissance company is blurred.

7.62 rifles (and 300WM) and spread out in platoons. But, the guys lugging those still have to do CQB with them. But, that is ok because they’ve weighted the M27 down to make it unbearable. We always fight the last war, and the last one had more engagements in the city than 500m+.

I personally would not not want to conduct CQB with a 7.62. Even when you chop them, they are still uncomfortable, and the 175s don’t stay in the human body(or slow down) at those distances.

Which is the reason I believe the 5.56 and M4 will remain dominant for another 50 years.

7.62 isn't versatile enough for the modern mission. 5.56 isn't powerful enough for the modern mission. What's a soldier or Marine to do? Are the NGSW products versatile enough?

I agree that 7.62 isn't great for CQB. Maybe not even good. However, if someone's role has the majority of their action in a CQB context, then maybe they aren't the GI that we've been considering the battle rifle for.

Also, would it be possible to utilize different ammo types, to maximize performance and mitigate risk, when switching to a CQB fight? I watched a video the other day that tested .308 in ballistics gel out of a 12.5" barrel (I think). They used a soft point of sorts. It created an almost immediate huge cavity that broke the plastic folding table the gel was on. It penetrated 16" and retained 90% of it's mass. That seems like favorable performance, in the CQB atmosphere, in my non-expert opinion.

5.56 has an undeniable edge on the civilian side of things: it's half the price. 7.62 is a daunting endeavor, for a civilian shooter. Ammo stockpiling is twice as spendy; training is twice as spendy.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Also, would it be possible to utilize different ammo types, to maximize performance and mitigate risk, when switching to a CQB fight? I watched a video the other day that tested .308 in ballistics gel out of a 12.5" barrel (I think). They used a soft point of sorts. It created an almost immediate huge cavity that broke the plastic folding table the gel was on. It penetrated 16" and retained 90% of it's mass. That seems like favorable performance, in the CQB atmosphere, in my non-expert opinion.

Not to further make your brain hurt, but also review the Law of Land Warfare documents and DoD, DA, DEPT of the Navy (DN?), etc. guidance on authorized munitions.

As to answer your question as to what the average Soldier or Marine should do. Thats easy, Master the weapons system that you are issued. Practice making lethal/effective hits out to the max effective range of your weapon system. Practice hitting moving targets, obscured targets, partial targets, etc. Shoot close, shoot far, do force on force in varying terrain. Actually, hitting things in combat is not as easy as the KD range, but training hard will help.

Also practice detecting/spotting your enemy in various terrains. You can be the best shot in the world, but if the other guy spots you first and calls for fire, you are going to have a bad day.

Of course you are correct, in regards to practice. This conversation has been largely theoretical. Where practice is concerned, I have always been of the opinion that a more practiced force can whip the heck out of a better-equipped but tactically/technically immature force. A platoon or Army Rangers with early GWOT gear is gonna beat the snot out of a basic Infantry platoon with NGSW gear. However, if that Ranger platoon fought a copy of itself, equipped with the NGSW, the results may differ.

I know fancy units have ways to maximize performance, while remaining within the authorized munitions rules already. Some creativity could yield some 7.62 NATO projectiles that have good CQB characteristics while playing by the rules, I am sure.

My assembled "modern battle rifle" Colt 901 weighs fourteen pounds with a loaded 20rd mag, and is forty inches long, with my stock at my preferred position. A naked M1A Tanker (16" barrel) with a loaded 20rd mag weighs just over ten pounds and is 37" long. On a battlefield, I am of the opinion that, if you don't have magnification on the gun, you'd do well to have a pair of binos that accompanies your rifle. A riflescope has more to offer than merely enabling confidence in longer range engagements.

Another aspect of this discussion is a current soldier's overall equipment load. Armor is something we want to defeat, but it's also something that makes smaller-lighter weapons that much more appealing, because we're having to tote similar armor ourselves. Armor (like everything) is a double-edged sword. It can save your life, but it also impedes potentially fight-winning (and therefore life-saving) mobility and agility. Seems as though war is coincidentally that much more survivable now: we citizens of earth are individually armored, and are less willing to carry weapons and ammo that are capable of defeating it.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

I know fancy units have ways to maximize performance, while remaining within the authorized munitions rules already. Some creativity could yield some 7.62 NATO projectiles that have good CQB characteristics while playing by the rules, I am sure.

My assembled "modern battle rifle" Colt 901 weighs fourteen pounds with a loaded 20rd mag, and is forty inches long, with my stock at my preferred position.

Another aspect of this discussion is a current soldier's overall equipment load. Armor is something we want to defeat, but it's also something that makes smaller-lighter weapons that much more appealing, because we're having to tote similar armor ourselves. Armor (like everything) is a double-edged sword. It can save your life, but it also impedes potentially fight-winning (and therefore life-saving) mobility and agility.

The 5.56mm vs 7.62 may be theoretical to you, but there has been significant amounts of taxpayer $$ spent and on testing it. That said, testing can be biased, both intentionally and unintentionally. But it has been done.

I've never heard of the SPF,SOF,TF,SF,etc. referred to as Fancy. That made me chuckle. I will point out that I told you review the documents vs told you that the 7.62mm round you mentioned is unauthorized. Some of the published guidance allows for certain MOSs to use certain rounds for certain missions. For example, MPs can and do/did use HPs for Law Enforcement missions. I've watched the rounds be issued and later verified the DODAAIC (SP), for my knowledge. I was in the same unit but couldn't use those rounds (different MOS). However, for "General Purpose" I doubt we would get the same latitude.

To further go down the SPF lane, most of the individuals from those units I have seen/worked with, used 5.56mm. Most used M4A1 variants, some used HK 416s. The 7.62mm stuff I saw with them was for precision work or in their MGs. Now, I am strictly a Conventional Forces guy and now a support guy to boot, so I haven't observed every breed of Special Operator, so understand that my observation is a very limited outside observation. They do have a very large assortment of weapons of various calibers available and the ammo/training to use them. Most use the 'Armsroom Concept", use the weapons that make sense for the mission.

JlJONES gave you some good info up above and in your other thread. I'd listen to him.

You use the phrase General Purpose, what does that mean to you? What distance, what kind of target, what kind of terrain, what kind of operations and which MOSs/organizations do you visualize using your General Purpoe Rifle?

quote:

You use the phrase General Purpose, what does that mean to you? What distance, what kind of target, what kind of terrain, what kind of operations and which MOSs/organizations do you visualize using your General Purpose Rifle?

11B-type soldiers and Marines. This conversation was born of the persistent comment that something in a .30 caliber flavor is preferred over 5.56, when we start talking about full-scale war. The armor and barrier defeating abilities of something like the 7.62x51, when compared to 5.56, would be preferrable.

This is not my opinion. I am not entrenched in either camp; I am learning.

Before this thread was created, the conversation was prompted by the "by the time you bolt all that crap to your AR15, you may as well tote a M14" comments seen pretty much everywhere. That led to a discussion of abilities granted by add-ons weighed against advantages of larger calibers, which led to the fact that, even if one deemed the larger caliber important enough to employ, one would still need to bolt on the crap, to be competitive on a modern battlefield.

It's all quite annoying and convoluted.

The goal is to see if the 7.62x51 is worth the weight and reduced ammo carriage capacity, on the modern battlefield. So far, it seems the answer is "no", outside the limited implementation of DMRs or perhaps a battle rifle team member per fire team.

If it's annoying and convoluted, why keep creating threads about it? :-)

For the Basic 11B, that question has been answerd for a while, 5.56mm.

It works in close and out to around 300 meters, where we expected/trained (kinda) them to shoot. Enemy armor hasn't been a real threat until recently. Optics and training can make effective 5.56mm hits out pretty far, my SDM actually preferred and M4/M16 with ACOG over the M14 back in 07 (lighter, easier to hit with, magazine availability, etc.). 7.62mm is sub-optimal for the close in ranges but makes money farther out. Yes, a 7.62mm has more energy than 5.56mm, but if Joe misses with it, or gets and ineffective hit, that energy is wasted. On armor piercing, M193, M855 and M855A1 actually outperformed 7.62mm in certain cases. A high velocity 5.56 (M193 out of a 20" barrel) could defeat a steel level III plate and an 855 could punch through a Poly level III plate. By definition, a Level III plate can stop 6 rounds of M80 (7.62mm). Mot folks will tell you that armor penetration is about velocity. If you shorten the 7.62mm barrel to make it lighter/handier, you drop velocity and thereby armor penetration.

Times, targets, projected engagement ranges are changing due to LSCO. We'll see if the Next Gen systems and rounds do what they are supposed to.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: CD228,

quote:

A high velocity 5.56 (M193 out of a 20" barrel) could defeat a steel level III plate and an 855 could punch through a Poly level III plate. By definition, a Level III plate can stop 6 rounds of M80 (7.62mm).

Well, in a world where we like everything smaller and lighter, We're using AR15s with 10.3"-14.5" barrels. The 5.56 presumably doesn't have that same level III performance out of the shorter barrels. Is the level III rating for the six rounds of M80 is using a 18" or 20" barrel?

Comparative testing is only fair with the same barrel lengths (or similar weapon OAL). If I was testing the barrier and armor performance of a 14.5" .308 gun, it would be more worthwhile if it went up against a 16" 5.56, as the weapon OAL would be close.

If 5.56 can defeat armor that .308 can't, why the heck do people cite the .308 as an advantageous cartridge in the fight against armor?

Is it safe to assume that the larger .308 projectile will have better barrier performance than 5.56, out of a weapon of similar form factor? Barrier performance alone would not be enough to justify the increase in weight and reduced ammo loadout associated with the .308.

Though .308 performance in an unarmored target is presumably better than 5.56, if the weapons are of similar form factor.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

A high velocity 5.56 (M193 out of a 20" barrel) could defeat a steel level III plate and an 855 could punch through a Poly level III plate. By definition, a Level III plate can stop 6 rounds of M80 (7.62mm).

Well, in a world where we like everything smaller and lighter, We're using AR15s with 10.3"-14.5" barrels. The 5.56 presumably doesn't have that same level III performance out of the shorter barrels. Is the level III rating for the six rounds of M80 is using a 18" or 20" barrel?

Comparative testing is only fair with the same barrel lengths (or similar weapon OAL). If I was testing the barrier and armor performance of a 14.5" .308 gun, it would be more worthwhile if it went up against a 16" 5.56, as the weapon OAL would be close.

If 5.56 can defeat armor that .308 can't, why the heck do people cite the .308 as an advantageous cartridge in the fight against armor?

Is it safe to assume that the larger .308 projectile will have better barrier performance than 5.56, out of a weapon of similar form factor? Barrier performance alone would not be enough to justify the increase in weight and reduced ammo loadout associated with the .308.

Though .308 performance in an unarmored target is presumably better than 5.56, if the weapons are of similar form factor.

Notice how fast the Interim Combat Service Rifle went away? Depending on how you chose to interpret GEN Milley's testimony to congress, we need the 7.62mm because we couldn't make the referenced AP round in 5.56mm . However later questioning had GEN Milley state that we could. Yet despite the General's comments the ICSR, never fielded. Did the threat go away, where we able to make the new round in 5.56mm, did the capability get wrapped into the Next Gen Weapon, or did I completely misread the situation.


Then look at the caliber selection for the Next Gen and how it bounced between 5.56, 6.5 and 6.8. 7.62 wasn't mentioned as a possible caliber.

Unfortunately, a lot of the data that drove the various decisions on small arms is not readily available to the public. When you see the numbers, test design and key selection criteria, it begins to make sense. Also factor in intuitional inertia and philosopy. We've harvested alot of Tech and data from the various tests IOT make the M16/M4 platform more reliable and improve performance.

However, by observing what the Troops who have very high latitude with their equipment selection are carrying, some of the high-end Law Enforcement units, Allied SF, you can extrapolate some of the results.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Well, in a world where we like everything smaller and lighter, We're using AR15s with 10.3"-14.5" barrels. The 5.56 presumably doesn't have that same level III performance out of the shorter barrels. Is the level III rating for the six rounds of M80 is using a 18" or 20" barrel?

Comparative testing is only fair with the same barrel lengths (or similar weapon OAL). If I was testing the barrier and armor performance of a 14.5" .308 gun, it would be more worthwhile if it went up against a 16" 5.56, as the weapon OAL would be close.

If 5.56 can defeat armor that .308 can't, why the heck do people cite the .308 as an advantageous cartridge in the fight against armor?

Is it safe to assume that the larger .308 projectile will have better barrier performance than 5.56, out of a weapon of similar form factor? Barrier performance alone would not be enough to justify the increase in weight and reduced ammo loadout associated with the .308.

Though .308 performance in an unarmored target is presumably better than 5.56, if the weapons are of similar form factor.

Ballistic testing is velocity based. I cited NIJ and easily researched instances. I should have quoted a velocity for the steel plate, but I didn't recall it off the top of my head. As to 5.56mm out of a short Barel, check out the M855A1. It was designed taking the M4 into account. To answer your next question, improvements don't automatically scale one to one. Meaning an improvement to 5.56mm doesn't automatically provide the same benefit to 7.62. You hit the point of diminishing returns.

Also, on the armor side, we use the SAPI/ESAP/XSAPI standards. So while I mentioned NIJ, that was for ease of reference. I'm not tracking that the SAPI testing and methodology is open distro. I'm sure you can find it though.

It's becoming apparent that I am in over my head.

I know this is a multi-faceted question, but i am gonna send it anyway...

I'll use the Ranger platoon previously mentioned. If a platoon of US Army Rangers fought a copy of itself... One platoon is equipped with 16" AR15s, fully equipped with all the add-ons to include silencers, and toting 210 rounds (seven mags) per man. The other is equipped with 14.5" AR10s, equipped the same way, but with only 140 rounds (seven mags) per man. Every practical battle circumstance is present during the fight: CQB, engagements out to 600M, cover, night time, personal armor, urban, rural, etc.

In your, and anyone else who's reading this', opinion, which side has the advantage?