![]() | |
![]() | #21 |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
|
SW, Sorry if I mis-read. I agree that the US should have 7.62 NATO at their disposal. I have no real issue with the 5.56 as a general issue round. Since most soldiers will get minimal training, and aren't gun people to begin with, the 5.56 makes sense. But it is not, and never will be capable of doing everything. I just wish the US would stop trying to force the one size fits all solution. The Russians have seen from the beginning that mulitple cartridges and multiple weapons are needed. When a more specialized weapon is called for, they have them on hand. For the US, they only have them on hand for special ops. The US should have: 5.56 standard issue .300 Blackout/equivalent for suppressed weapons (I actually like the Russian 9x39mm much better) but the .300 BO has some advantages as well...I could be happy with either. 7.62 NATO or something similar. Actually I think the .260 Rem would be even better. For DMR operations, GPMG, or MBR when situations call for more horsepower. .338 Lapua - For long range sniping .50 BMG - Long range sniping, heavy machinegun, anti-equipment |
![]() |
![]() | #22 |
Banned Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,882
|
GunGeek, NO argument. I've been a place or 3 OCONUS where a MBR in the hands of a SM Team would have been "advantageous" to all concerned, though I hasten to add that I personally carried an Ithaca Model 37 pump-gun & a brace of BHP most of the time. = A talented marksman, I am NOT. yours, sw |
![]() |
![]() | #23 |
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,540
|
I had a good friend, now deceased, who had someone (Smith Enterprises ?) build him a XM-21 clone complete with Leatherwood scope. I got to play with it one day on a UDR and was quite taken with it. I could actually see the bullet strikes on the steels way out there. I do understand that the scope left something to be desired in durability, as did the bedding on the M14. I can certainly understand the allure of the M14 in certain areas and tactical conditions. Especially when the alternative is a bolt gun with a Unertl target scope. |
![]() |
| |
![]() | #24 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,540
| Quote:
| |
![]() |
![]() | #25 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 10,793
| Quote:
Wish I could afford a Nightforce. | |
![]() |
![]() | #26 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
9x18 9x19 7.62x54R 7.62x39 5.45.39 9x39 12.7mm 14.5mm | |
![]() |
![]() | #27 |
Banned Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,882
|
GunGeek, Fwiw, I was once a BN supply officer for a "leg MP unit" & I had enough trouble assuring a constant/complete supply of 9x19mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO linked for the M60 MGs, H555 & 12 gauge shotgun shells out to the "troops in contact", W/O adding a lot more different sorts of ammo. (The more different sorts of vehicles/firearms/ammo that a combat support unit has, the greater the likelihood of a "major screw-up" in supplying spare parts/ammo.) yours, sw Last edited by stand watie; 05-31-2017 at 07:29 AM. Reason: typo |
![]() |
![]() | #28 |
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,540
| Me Too! ![]() I did get to try a Nightforce at Camp Butner after shooting for record. I could see the scoring rings at 1000 yards! Too bad most of their stuff has objectives the size of sewer pipes. And prices made for the rich. I visited the Unertl plant before I bought it. I was window shopping for a 2 inch Ultra scope ~ 10x. They didn't have any in stock and the sales guy commented that it "Was almost as bright as a hunting scope." At that point I reconceptualized my scope hunt. Last edited by William R. Moore; 05-31-2017 at 05:20 PM. |
![]() |
![]() | #29 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
And to be honest, the need for the specialty rounds/weapons would be less today than it was in WW II. I mean the M1 Carbine was supposed to be a support weapon, but it ended up that we made almost 3 carbines for every Garand in WWII. We don't even have a SMG role anymore, just handguns. But there are big changes on the horizon. Level IV body armor is becoming very prevalent even with our "unsophisticated" enemies. I've heard (but can't really confirm) that Level IV plates can be had as cheap as $250ea. Standard ball 5.56, 7.62x39, 7.62 NATO doesn't punch it. And I wanna say 5.56 AP won't punch it either. So cartridge changes are coming one way or another. There's talk of the US seeking a 7.62 NATO interim rifle until "other" rounds have finished their development...that's interesting...and a little worrying in some ways. Case telescoped ammunition is VERY likely to be adopted in the next 10 years; if not sooner. The Army is playing with .260, 6.5 Grendel, and two other 6.5's that the Army are developing, and it's expected the result of those tests/development will be adopted by the Army at least for MG & DMR use, but could even go so far as becoming our next general issue cartridge. Who knows???? Suppressors have proven to be a big boon to soldiers in combat, so use of suppressors will expand greatly in the future. And if you're going to have suppressors become general issue, it would be a waste to not develop up a sub-sonic round for specialized missions. Now throw into the mix that JAG has been seeking ways to allow JHP's to be allowed for general issue for international warfare (not just "police actions"). The Marines are already using on a limited bases the 5.56mm MK318 MOD which uses a JHP similar to the Trophy Bonded Core (damn good bullet BTW). So LOTS of changes coming, and they're going to have to figure it out. | |
![]() |
![]() | #30 |
Banned Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,882
|
GunGeek, Actually, the USA/Allies oftentimes did NOT "pull it off" successfully in WWII & Korea. NUMEROUS major tactical operations had to be delayed or canceled because the WRONG ammunition & spare parts were "sent forward" & "the troops in contact" could NOT be resupplied in a timely manner. = OPERATION MARKET GARDEN for just ONE such "HUGE screw up" that was fatally delayed by logistics errors. (MANY brave British/Polish/American paratroopers died because "what was needed" arrived over 14 hours AFTER they were sorely needed.) The LESS different kinds of weapons/ammunition/"specialty items" the BETTER, in my experience. yours, sw Last edited by stand watie; 06-02-2017 at 04:32 PM. Reason: clarity |
![]() |
![]() | #31 |
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,540
|
Hard armor isn't as great a benfit as many folks believe. I'll note that per a combat medic, 70% of battlefield injuries are to extremities, which aren't armored. I'm not going into great detail beyond that on an open forum, but I had to wear the stuff once per year during our stress course where we had to communicate, gun & run for time and score. It convinced me that except under very special circumstances, I'd harvest additional ammo from the carrier and leave the armor. I already had a level 3A vest on. About supplies: I have it from direct sources that our supply lines couldn't keep up with the need for sniper ammo. There were many cases of the guys having to delink 7.62 ball for use. GMPG ammo isn't made to the same specs as dedicated match/sniper ammo. |
![]() |
![]() | #32 |
Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Greater Waxhaw Metropolitan Area
Posts: 1,724
|
In all the talk of potential 7.62 Nato MBR's for the Army, I'm surprised no has mentioned one choice that seems obvious: the grandaddy of the AR-15, the AR-10. I have owned an Armalite AR-10T and found it to be a superb .30 caliber launcher. I also own an M1A, and I'd be hard pressed to choose between the two based on weight, recoil, and accuracy. Given the facts that at least some commonality exists between the two AR's, and that training costs would be significant over the M14 or a bolt gun, I'd have to vote for an AR variant in 7.62. |
![]() |
![]() | #33 |
Banned Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 3,882
|
CaptainGyro, Frankly, I couldn't care less WHICH quality MBR that the AFs pick for "secondary issue", as long as it's a GOOD rifle that works well, will feed on 7.62x51 NATO ammo & is purchased SOON w/o a lot of "messing about". (I've never even fired an AR-10.) yours, sw |
![]() |
![]() | #34 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
Logistics will always be a problem and a challenge. I guess we just have a fundamental disagreement. I doubt either of us are going to change the other's mind. | |
![]() |
![]() | #35 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
| |
![]() |
![]() | #36 | |
Banned Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 538
| Quote:
| |
![]() |
![]() | #37 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
They MAY (or may not) find the M110 sufficient for an interim rifle. But it does seem that the DI mechanism's days are numbered. I think they are rather serious about making a change sometime in the next 10 years...probably closer to 5... but none of what they're considering includes a DI gas mechanism...you know, now that it's good and proven, and the US military has really mastered how to run it and keep it running. | |
![]() |
![]() | #38 |
Banned Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 538
| Once again the US of A has fielded a Target Grade Firearm (03,Garand) for General Issue. The DI gas mechanism is in keeping with the highest standards of target firearms. But once again, it might be the guarantee of consistent sustained rate of fire that overshadows the inherent accuracy of the system design. If you can't shoot well, shoot allot! Eventually you will be successful if you live long enough. LOL.
|
![]() |
![]() | #39 | |
Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Northern NV
Posts: 797
| Quote:
Consider that most felt the M14 was a very accurate rifle. I submit to you, after one year in the field, most any AK would have better mechanical accuracy than an M14, yet our soldiers could still connect at 500m shot after shot, and miss that shot more often than not with an AK. That's because mechanical accuracy takes a distant back seat to sights, trigger, balance, and recoil impulse...shooter input. | |
![]() |
![]() | #40 | |
Banned Join Date: Sep 2015 Location: 29.62 N 81.219 W
Posts: 538
| Quote:
Waterlogged swollen stocks and all I have yet to find an M14 that didn't have greater mechanical accuracy than any AK. An abused AK may function longer than an abused M14, (I'll even hedge on that point of contention)But connecting repetitively on a 500m shoot with a pristine AK falls into the category of BLIND LUCK. JMHO. | |
![]() |
![]() |
|
Search tags for this page |
army conversion from m16 to m4
Click on a term to search for related topics.
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
![]() | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army Ditching 1911 but None to CMP | csmkersh | Gun Talk | 18 | 04-13-2017 07:10 AM |
Glock protests Army Handgun pick | DavidE | Handguns | 3 | 03-05-2017 07:24 AM |