US shouldchange ammo and weapon

[Motopilot1 37]

Firgure i would throw this out maybe ruffle some feathers. I think the us should bag the ar platform and the 223. all together. what should they go to a more reliable design such as robinson xcr or daewoo ak etc and go to a round such as 7.62x39 or 308 maybe there wouldnt be as many problems with penetration in urban environments just think the 223. round is a joke ide feel a lot more safe hiding behind hard cover with somebody shooting a 223. at me than a 308 thats for damn sure

[Twinsen 86]

Well they aren't going to change to a round that's much heavier to carry, and they aren't going to change to one that's less accurate.

 

I think the AR system would be fine if had a gas piston.

 

Just remember, Israel changed from the Galil to the AR. Maybe just because the Galil is so heavy, I don't know the story.

[nalioth 405]

Well they aren't going to change to a round that's much heavier to carry, and they aren't going to change to one that's less accurate.

 

I think the AR system would be fine if had a gas piston.

 

Just remember, Israel changed from the Galil to the AR. Maybe just because the Galil is so heavy, I don't know the story.

The M16s were -for all intents and purposes- free* to the Israelis. Would you rather spend money on rifles or use it elsewhere?

 

 

 

 

 

*free from israeli purchase. WE (the American taxpayer) actually paid (and pay still) for them.

Edited December 10, 2007 by nalioth

[Twinsen 86]

That's pretty funny.

[Motopilot1 37]

yes thats true you can carry more 223. but it doesnt do any good if you have to use more of it to get through a wall or kill somebody i spoke with a friend of mine who just got out of the marines and said he hated his M4 and that most of the guys given the chance would grab AK47s

[dayanx 1]

Personally I'd like to see them use the .308 again. We all know it's possible from the AR-10, and all they would need is the proper replacement parts to convert existing M-16/M4s

[Twinsen 86]

Is there any real place that soldiers can go to complain about their equipment or suggest changes? I figure if there is, what they got is what they want.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Penetration in an urban environment is very worrisome with the .223

 

I've ranted about this before but every single comparison of 7,62x39 or 5,45x39 vs. 5,56x45 (.223) shows that the first two are better. Why not just go to a 5.45x39. Don't ask me why but i watched a video of m16 vs ak74 and the .223 went through 8 boards and wedged in the 9th, and the ak74 went through the first 9 plus an extra 4? To me that's 50% more penetration in a cartridge that's almost identical to the .223

 

When you think about it, that doesn't make sense that the .223 would be so weak. Maybe it's the fact that the bullet tumbles making penetration a HUGE issue when your enemy is behind cover. BTW that video is http://youtube.com/watch?v=mqaeX2KigSc

[nalioth 405]

Penetration in an urban environment is very worrisome with the .223

 

I've ranted about this before but every single comparison of 7,62x39 or 5,45x39 vs. 5,56x45 (.223) shows that the first two are better. Why not just go to a 5.45x39. Don't ask me why but i watched a video of m16 vs ak74 and the .223 went through 8 boards and wedged in the 9th, and the ak74 went through the first 9 plus an extra 4? To me that's 50% more penetration in a cartridge that's almost identical to the .223

Russian soldiers hate the 5.45 just like our soldiers hate the 5.56. Neither has the umph to penetrate urban obstacles like the 7.62x39

 

When you think about it, that doesn't make sense that the .223 would be so weak. Maybe it's the fact that the bullet tumbles making penetration a HUGE issue when your enemy is behind cover. BTW that video is http://youtube.com/watch?v=mqaeX2KigSc

The US fixed the tumbling issue in the late 80s with the M16A2 and the SS109/M855 cartridge. The M16A2 went to a 1 in 7 twist barrel (the M16A1 had a 1 in 12 twist) to stabilize the heavier 62 grain M855 cartridge (the older cartridge used in the M16A1 was 55 grain).

[SaigaNoobie 66]

Ah, in that case, the 7.62x39.

 

In any case, I agree that the .223 is a WEAK round.

 

2MoA vs. .5MoA in an Urban close environment means NOTHING. Penetration vs. Body Armor and coverage DOES matter.

[SaigaNoobie 66]

I never understood why the ammo issue was such a big deal. 4000 rounds of ammo on a soldier in close combat? For open field long range fire fights, that's one thing, for storming into a building where your accuracy will be at least 20-50%, do you really think you'll need to hit 2000 targets (assuming 50% hit rate) ??? Will you have time to reload 30 rd mags x 3 x 10 x 4? 120 magazines or reloading 120 mags full of ammo? That's at least an HOUR of reloading mags. 30 secs per mag x 120 mags = 1hr. I can't think of a situation where I'd need more than 500 rounds of ammo on me in CLOSE quarters. Actually, 240 rds. in 8 mags would be enough. Either you are in a situation where you can't win, you've won, or you're dead before you shoot 240rds. and that's not counting the 5 other people rushing in with you.

[GPalmer 1]

The penetration is poor with the .223. I've been looking at the 6.8 mm (SPC) cartridge lately since the ballistics look much better both for penetration and for wounding terminal ballistics. I'm not too concerned with having 25 rounds per magazine instead of 30 if they'll do a better job when they get there.

[Saigaczech 9]

Firgure i would throw this out maybe ruffle some feathers. I think the us should bag the ar platform and the 223. all together. what should they go to a more reliable design such as robinson xcr or daewoo ak etc and go to a round such as 7.62x39 or 308 maybe there wouldnt be as many problems with penetration in urban environments just think the 223. round is a joke ide feel a lot more safe hiding behind hard cover with somebody shooting a 223. at me than a 308 thats for damn sure

 

 

I had an XCR and got rid of it withing 6 months. That rifle has problems. The main one is the quick change barrel. The bolt holding it in is too sensitive to torqueing and will come loose if not torqued to 200 ft-in, if it comes loose your barrel starts rattlign around in the reciver and you lose all accuracy. The problem is that if you torque it a bit past 200 ft-in you damage the receiver. It needs to be done with rather exacting limits. I do not know about you but most troops do not hump torque wrenches to the field. I tried tightening it with just an allen wrench and wound up stringing shots all over the place. It caused the two rifle instructors present to shake their heads and ask what was up with me that day as they know I hold a master certificate in rifle.

 

Additionally I agree with SOCOM that the way the bolt carrier group falls apart when you pull it out of the receiver leaves a lot to be desired. A great way to lose things or get sand into everything. The fact that the receiver is on a very limited hinge is also deal breaker, no fast easy access to the inside if things go wrong. Proprietary parts are not really very good for mass production either. No, this is not the rifle that troops should carry.

[Saigaczech 9]

What I find funny is that the British Army did a study right after WWII to find the most effective round for shouldered small arms. It came out to about 7mm so tey came up with the EM-2 rifle chambered in .280. Unfortunately the US military is populated by men with small male endowments and they forced the 7.62x51 NATO round down everyones throat, only to have McNamara force the 5.56x45 round into the mix in the 60s. It seems like the choices of rounds or weapons in the US has been very unscientific for a while and hinging mostly on political whim. Now we have troops in the s*** that are armed with ineffective weapons that are unreliable for those field conditions.

 

So the entire US weapons development has been a royal CF with any and all real advancement in small arms being overseas. It is no coincidence that most the weapons systems in use by the US military now are actually developed by European companies. Companies like Beretta, HK, FNH, Oerlikon, Bofors, Rheinmetall , etc. I think it is McNamaa's legacy of shutting down most US arsenal plants during his reign of terror in the DOD that is responsible. THe US is actually playing catch up in the arms race as far as the infantry weapon and has been for a long time.

[GPalmer 1]

THe US is actually playing catch up in the arms race as far as the infantry weapon and has been for a long time.

Which is a very sad state of affairs since while other branches might get more glory, it's the ground pounder that really holds the territory.

[SuAside 2]

What I find funny is that the British Army did a study right after WWII to find the most effective round for shouldered small arms. It came out to about 7mm so tey came up with the EM-2 rifle chambered in .280. Unfortunately the US military is populated by men with small male endowments and they forced the 7.62x51 NATO round down everyones throat, only to have McNamara force the 5.56x45 round into the mix in the 60s. It seems like the choices of rounds or weapons in the US has been very unscientific for a while and hinging mostly on political whim. Now we have troops in the s*** that are armed with ineffective weapons that are unreliable for those field conditions.

the EM-2 would never have made it anyway, but the FAL was originally designed for .280, until the US forced 7.62x51mm down everyone's throat.

 

now, nothing bad about the 7.62x51, but i find it funny that first they forced everyone into heavier ammo (read 7.62x51mm NATO), then into lighter loads (read 5.56x45mm NATO) and nowwe're hearing more and more about something inbetween 6.5 and 6.8.

the .280 would already have been inbetween.

 

So the entire US weapons development has been a royal CF with any and all real advancement in small arms being overseas. It is no coincidence that most the weapons systems in use by the US military now are actually developed by European companies. Companies like Beretta, HK, FNH, Oerlikon, Bofors, Rheinmetall , etc. I think it is McNamaa's legacy of shutting down most US arsenal plants during his reign of terror in the DOD that is responsible. THe US is actually playing catch up in the arms race as far as the infantry weapon and has been for a long time.

the Beretta example is actually a bad one, since it's one of the few purchases of the US Army that was nearly entirely politically motivated.

[roadblock1983 0]

Ive killed with both rounds and the 5.56 sucks wich is why were trained to put two rounds to the chest ( I use three)and then one (I use two) into the head. I also mix up my mags with one tracer every two to three rounds and my first two mags are full of nothing but tracers.

Ive never had to use more than two rounds using my M14 and have literally used the M240 and cut a man in halve.

[dayanx 1]

Welcome, Mall Ninja Number 7,995. XD

[Azrial 1,091]

.....Just remember, Israel changed from the Galil to the AR. Maybe just because the Galil is so heavy, I don't know the story....

They were free. That is the story. But I now see that somebody has already told it.

 

Personally I'd like to see them use the .308 again. We all know it's possible from the AR-10, and all they would need is the proper replacement parts to convert existing M-16/M4s

 

You can convert your toaster into a .308 almost as easily as you can an AR-15.

Edited December 16, 2007 by Azrial

[roadblock1983 0]

Not a mall ninja just somebody with some combat experiance in Iraq.

Armies reflexive fire training SOP is to use controled pairs when you shoot. Some units have the third round to the head thing in their SOP others use two sets of controled pairs(I use what Im comfortable with) The round in the head thing I do before reaching or crossing a LOA to keep from getting shot in the back.

mags full of tracers do several things one I can use them to Direct fire on to targets. Two Tracers attract attention and get noticed when your firing warning shots. Three they allow you to see were you rounds are going very useful in low light. Four they do more damage because they burn.

[SuAside 2]

they also draw fire though.

 

but tracers can be of use, sure. i remember a squad of outnumbered soldiers that used mags full of tracers (instead of the usual every 3 or so rounds) and they made the enemy believe there were a lot more of them than there actually were (thereby delaying the assault and buying them time).

 

anyhow, as for the 2 in the chest and 1 in the head, i believe that's called the Mozambique firing drill.

[jbremount 0]

Well they aren't going to change to a round that's much heavier to carry, and they aren't going to change to one that's less accurate.

 

I think the AR system would be fine if had a gas piston.

 

Just remember, Israel changed from the Galil to the AR. Maybe just because the Galil is so heavy, I don't know the story.

 

 

I fall on the side that would rather have a bigger round.....like 110gr++, 7.62 or 6.8 now that I am shooting AK rifles. I like having a rifle in my truck that I can take hog or deer without a problem. What I don't understand is, how much realiablity increase is expected/achieved with a gas piston system. I did not think the current AR rifles were having problems with fouling from firing quality .223 ammo made with the right powder. The problem is the fine tacky/powdery sand like in Iraq that gets into everything. If your rifle is built tight like the AR then the problems. Maybe someone who has been there can tell us more about the realibility of the AR and AK in a sandy environment.

Edited December 17, 2007 by jbremount

[Paladin 37]

The poor penetration and the need for 2-3 rds to kill is the very reason that the special forces units are pushing for a replacement for the 5.56. The tendency to shorter and shorter barrel lengths has made the effectiveness problem worse with the 5.56.

 

The AR is a well built weapon-too well built. In the crappy conditions in the Middle East they are maintenance intensive. It's not the piston that makes the AK perform better in harsh conditions (though it certainly helps that it doesn't shit where it eats) it's the looser tolerance's.

 

There has been trials by some units testing the 6.8spc and the 6.5 Grendel in the sandbox. Both calibers are superior to the 5.56. The standard load out is 300 rds of ammo. IIRC in 5.56 thats about 9lbs in .308 its about 15lbs. Both 6.8 & 6.5 are about 11.5lbs. The recoil of the 6.8 & 6.5 is on par with the x39.

 

The general consensus is the 6.8spc is slightly superior to the 6.5 Grendel in CQB While the 6.5G is much better at long range.

 

From what I have read the 6.5 Grendel could replace BOTH the 5.56 and the .308. It beats the 5.56 in power and penetration and is very close to the .308 in long range, sniping performance.

 

For example, at 1000m the .308 delivers 1150 fps and 481 ftlbs The 6.5Grendel is 1222 fps and 408 ftlbs. And this is with about the ammo weight and recoil of the x39!!

 

The big "but" in this whole deal is that your talking about re-equipping all of NATO and no one wants to spend the money.

 

Whew, sorry for the "novel" but I've been following this.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Paladin

[RDSWriter 5]

Paladin - Excellent summary of the advantages disadvantages of the 6.5 and 6.8

 

My personal opinion is that Alexander Arms is going to lose this battle with their 6.5 Grendel due to their lack of willingness to push it as the 'open' standard. A very good friend for mine reseached the 6.5 and 6.8 for several months. Money wasn't an issue per se, but in the end he went with 6.8 because of the sheer availability of 6.8 barrels/bolts. For the exact barrel he wanted - stainless, fluted, Special Purpose profle, with his desired thread pattern... he could find one off the shelf in 6.8. The same barrel in 6.5 Grendel would have run him over $300 more because of the (real or perceived) market limitations in place by Alexander Arms. He couldn't justify the additional investment when he doesn't ever shoot more than about 300yds.

 

To truly get the benefits of the 6.5 Grendel (versus 6.8), you need to be able to take advantage of the long range ballistics... something my friend and I rarely ever get the opportunity to do.

 

Given the variety of terrains and situations the military is involved, I do think that the military should consider upgrading to the 6.8. And while I'm on this topic, I also think that they should dump all their surplus 223 parts and magazines on the US collectors market...

Edited December 18, 2007 by RDSWriter

[Paladin 37]

Yes, one of the problems Alexander Arms has had is they are requiring licensing of everything Grendel. This is holding the cartridge back.

 

I don't think the military is going to make any wholesale changes soon. Special forces have more latitude and will use either the 6.8 or 6.5. I think they both are great rounds and huge step up from the 5.56.

 

I will say that the 6.5 Grendel is based on the 6ppc which is derived from the .220 swift, which is in turn based on the .220 Russian which was derived from...wait for it.....yes the 7.62x39!!

 

I am sitting here as we speak with my bolt, a round of 6.5G. And you know what? the 6.5G fits the bolt

[vjor 2]

Well they aren't going to change to a round that's much heavier to carry, and they aren't going to change to one that's less accurate.

 

I think the AR system would be fine if had a gas piston.

 

Just remember, Israel changed from the Galil to the AR. Maybe just because the Galil is so heavy, I don't know the story.

The M16s were -for all intents and purposes- free* to the Israelis. Would you rather spend money on rifles or use it elsewhere?

 

 

 

 

 

*free from israeli purchase. WE (the American taxpayer) actually paid (and pay still) for them.

 

No there were not free, see this is the catch, when the USA lend you money to buy guns, they make you

get the guns from USA manufacturers, you cannot just go and get any weapons you want from any were in

the planet. That's how Israel ended with M16 same with Guatemala to replace the wear out galils

with new rifles, the USA give the country a military loan, but with the consing that any purchase of weapons

will be made on USA military weapons, thats is how Guatemala ended with M16 too.

 

Damn , I guess the Germans were right when they 7 mm Kurts for there new toy on WW II, I guess the Russians

learn from the Germans in how to make a assault rifle and use a intermediate caliber and must of Europe too

until the USA push for the 7.62 x 51 and latter for the 5.56x45.

 

 

And yes the 7.62X39 is really good at what it does if you know how to use it and can do a lot of damage

especially when you are at the receiving end of the gun.

 

Sorry guys I am not familiar with the new calibers, you know old dude, pass my time to learn new stuff.

[Saigaczech 9]

Damn Americans, screw up the arms race for everyone, lol. Just kidding. I do however wonder if most the guys at the DOD and such were endowment challenged due to them always pushing for big powerful rounds until the 60s. WWII proved the advantage of the intermediate round for battle. The Soviets figured this out based on experiences with the Germans. Why did the US push the 7.62x51? I know it was McNamara and a few "fixed"reports that got the M-16 fielded, I do however wonder why it has held on so long. There must have been plenty of anecdotal evidence as to it's ineffectiveness before this. Guess the pentagon system of not rocking the boat works really well, after all none of them are at the front. ANyone ever see "The Pentagon Wars" about the Bradley AFV?

[loki0629 55]

In order for the US to get ahead in the infantry weapons race they are going to have to do something innovative.

 

Like mount lasers.

 

On our frickin' heads.

 

All joking aside I really think the US suffers from it's own technological superiority. Our engineers can build things like Harriers, super carriers, stealth bombers, stealth subs, but something like an infantry firearm is either not in their interest or maybe just not glamorous enough.

 

I get a kick every time I see that gear featured in the Land Warrior trials some time back. PDA's, computer chips, and battery packs should NOT be standard gear for a grunt. At least not with current technology. Maybe when the nano stuff really hits its stride it will become feasible. I think not too long ago IBM announced it was able to fabricate a supercomputer on a chip using optical communication lines so I think it will get there in my lifetime.

 

In the meantime, stick with something simple that works and is readily available. The AR is more suited to the firing range than in field conditions. We need to somehow come up with a firearm that is tight where it needs to be and loose where it should be. Maybe something along the lines of the roller delayed blowback of the CETME/HK G3 but chambered in 7.62x39.

 

Hmmm.....that would be something.

 

Anyone know if such an animal exists?

 

Yeah, yeah I know H&K hates me but that G3 design ranks up there with the AK in reliability.

[Paladin 37]

One of the problems with technology is that they keep coming up with things to increase the capability of troops, but it also keeps adding weight. Which decreases their mobility and adds to the complexity when troops in the middle of a firefight need to concentrate on taking out bad guys and staying alive.

 

I believe I read the average fighting load is around 63lbs. The body armor needs to be lighter and all the electronics needs to be seriously shrunk. We can do it, it just takes money. I think your right, the military wants more big dollar mega tanks, F-22's, missile systems, etc more than body armor that weighs less.

 

I'd like to see something other than 7.62x39. Now I love the round, but if your going to re-equip I'd want the 6.8 or 6.5. they both are a huge step up from the 5.56 and better that the x39.

 

For example: the 6.5 Grendel has more velocity and energy at 100m than the x39 has at the muzzle. Tossing the same 123 gr. slug with a much higher cross section (read penetration) and ballistic coefficient (read range).

[loki0629 55]

Good point Paladin. I guess we would be better off committing to either of those two rounds as opposed to limiting our options based on what's already out there. Isn't the refitting of the AR 5.56 platform into 6.8 supposed to be doable?