GunGeek

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

stand watie

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

William R. Moore

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.

William R. Moore

I think someone already quoted the maxim about how professionals talk logistics while other folks quibble about tactics. There's good reasons why the "unusual stuff" is limited to spec ops. They have their own supply chains.

csmkersh

I'm very fond of a bolt in 7.62x51. A Savage Weather Warrior is my civilian version topped with a Leopold scope.

Wish I could afford a Nightforce.

GunGeek

Well, the Russians seem to pull it off; why can't we?

9x18
9x19
7.62x54R
7.62x39
5.45.39
9x39
12.7mm
14.5mm

stand watie

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

William R. Moore

Me Too! I make do with a Remy & a Leupold made for Police Marksmen (no longer cataloged) with target knobs.

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.

GunGeek

I get that...but that's the tail wagging the dog. Cartridge/weapon selection should be based on the needs of the end user. After we find something that fits those needs, then you look for ways to optimize logistics on the back side. We pulled it off in WW II & Korea, no reason we can't pull it off today.

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.

stand watie

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

William R. Moore

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.

CaptainGyro

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.

stand watie

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

GunGeek

While logistics were a serious problem at Market Garden, the operation was doomed before the first plane was launched. Even if logistics went off perfectly, it would have failed.

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.

GunGeek

I'm sure that's an option being considered. There's a decent number of SR25's / M110's in the Army's inventory that could be used/converted. Not sure how "ideal" they would be, but like you said, training would be 99% the same, and there's already a supply line for parts. Makes a good deal of sense for an "interim" rifle.

M118LR

I believe that all the services have decided to move away from gas impingement systems for full automatic fire rifles, and back to piston driven systems. So the M110 like the M4 have limited service life. JMHO.

GunGeek

I'm not sure the Army really knows what they want. The boss at the Army has indicated they're VERY interested in the M27, and there's an RFI out for something like that, but now this 7.62 NATO "interim" rifle...and then mentions of case telescoped ammunition.

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.

M118LR

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.

GunGeek

While DI will always have an accuracy advantage, it does come at the cost of a dirty rifle. Now we know if you just keep the rifle lubed, you can literally go years without cleaning your rifle, but that will eventually get really messy. While reliability isn't a real complaint with the M16/M4, cleaning is. The best piston AR's foul up a fraction of the DI rifles, and I think that's the real motive behind the piston guns. As for accuracy, once you hit 1.5 MOA, everything beyond that is just showing off and really doesn't offer anything in the field for a general issue, or even a designated marksman rifle. Bench mechanical accuracy is highly over-rated and over stressed by the American Rifleman, and it should never take precedence over reliability or ease of maintenance once minimum accuracy standards have been met.

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.

M118LR

I don't believe that I can except your submission.

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.