Is that something new?

Attached File


Attached File

I was a part in training and qualifying thousands of Soldiers. If you can't get 11Bs to pass a basic rifle qual, your training program sucks, so do your NCOs, and probably some of the soldiers suck too. I think we agree that is a fairly common problem. That's why I used the caveat "if they do it right" ... I really doubt that they would. And I agree it's significantly harder than what they are already doing.

Yeah, and it may not be 100% true but apparently the Type 99 is the last major user of 7.62 and the Chinese ordered the caliber to be dropped from active duty. They still export it and probably have more in warehouses than anyone else.

The Type 15 supposedly comes with the 5.8, sold as the export model it gets a 7.62. The design goal of the 5.8 was to have superior external ballistics to the 7.62x54.

The whole point of the the lightweight rifle project was to replace the .30-06, either the T65 or the .280 British.

Pick one.

I read that, and understand your point of view.

But, if you go back and read what I wrote, you will see what I am saying is .280 British was not a good choice in 1952, and is still not a good choice today.

The criteria is one round for everything, so pick your one round.

At the rifle level.  There were no machineguns in the rifle trials, surprisingly - b/c machineguns are not rifles, and even if we had adopted .280 Brit as the NATO rifle round, undoubtedly we would have kept a heavier round for the GMPG.

Sorta like we did in Vietnam w/ the M60/M16 mix.

But we dont have 1 round for everything. In a Inf Bn right now that is being fielded the M7/250 pair that Bn will have 6.8 boxed and belted, 5.56 boxed and belted, 7.62 belted and boxed for the M110A1 and finally the .338 Lapua for the K22 Barrett.
The 5.56 will still be required for anyone not 11B; which is still a lot of folks.
I figure about a year into fielding it will be “discovered” the 6.8 weapon sucks at CQB by being way too heavy and not enough ammo so M4s will reappear.
CQB happens more than 600m rifle duals

It’s gonna be a shit show.

Mk22 comes with 3 barrels.  7.62mm NATO, .300 Norma Mag and .338 Norma Mag

If all of them do, they are at a higher level. This is how they arrived at Bn level.
Attached File

No, we weren't going to keep the .30-06 for anything, or have another set of trials.  

The T65 was going to replace the .30-06, period.  The T25 was chambered in T65 and that was the rifle, and the T52 was chambered in T65 and that was the ground mount machine gun (eventually the M60), the T197 was chambered in T65, and that was the armor machine gun.  The "lightweight rifle cartridge" was a universal cartridge.

That's why the .280 got dropped.

During transition you always have more types than desired.

From 1954 to about 1970, they had .30-06, clipped (8rnd), clipped (5 rnd), belted, and boxed; 7.62mm, clipped, belted and boxed; 5.56mm clipped, belted (Stoner 63), and boxed. However, once things settled down and older weapons retired, the battalion S-4 really only worried about three types: belted 7.62mm, and 5.56mm in clips and belts.  Sniper ammo is always different.

Is .338 Lapua issued at the infantry battalion level?

I should say SOCOM ODA level for the 3 barreled Mk22 set

Reading recently even the Brits saw that the .280 cartridge did not have the light armor penetration that NATO was calling for.  If they upped the velocity the negatives crept up.  

Think machine guns more than battle rifle and it makes more sense as to why the 7.62 was the final choice.  The rifle was just along for the ride in common caliber choice.   Even when the M16 came to be by directive the machine gun was still needed in 7.62.

The Swedes had the right idea.  6.5x55mm for the rifleman & LMG, 8x63mm for the MMG & the artillery carbine.

Each M7 13”, ships with 7 20 rd magazines, dump pouch, silencer, BFA and sling shit plus BUIS set and a few tools. So basic issue is 140 rds vise 210+- for 5.56mm.  I think of this a M14 2.0 and built for the last war, not the next one.

New Equipment Training on the M7. Big weapon

Attached File
. Attached File


And M250
Attached File

Thank the gods…finally a picture of a dude not resting his silencer on something. A few pictures. Those dudes’ NCOs don’t suck, probably.

Army Guard too.  Training being done at Ft Bragg

The scope and the new SAW look like huge improvements. 2/3 isn't bad. And if nothing else, the new rifle will make a good DMR probably.

Apparently it’s a 4 minute gun.

Damn that sucks. How the hell is it meeting the requirements as a 4 MOA gun? It's awfully hard to break Chinese plates at 800 to 1,000 yards if you can't even hit them.

Hopefully it's just an issue of the early training ammo being shitty?

Apparently it’s one of the reasons the ammunition was downloaded. Trying to get the accuracy back.

2MOA/5MIL

0.5 Mil?

Eh. Thats workable for a DMR but not great. Not worth a switch.

My stance is still that it would make a ok mission specific weapon available choice for units trained on them; but general issue to all close combat units ?? No. I could even see a few per platoon if the Army just feels compelled to pad Sig with some more $$ but one for every 11B to me is a NoGo.
To knowingly go into a CQB/Trench/House (140rd basic load) with this beast would be a piss poor choice at best.  The M250 does look, at least, like it might be a fine weapon over the SAW.

Correct

Good read on accuracy or lack of
Shooter impression

The 6.8 would be a decent replacement for the m240.  I wonder If the m240s could be rechambered in 6.8 for some of the guns we have in the system.  With only Infantry getting the m7 and support troops m4s and Marines M27s it makes some sense to replace 7.62 rifles with the 6.8.

Notice that the sniper systems are not going with this cartridge.

True.  With the new pressure standard it is almost like they should have gone 6.5 creedmoor.

what are these practice vs combat rounds he's talking about?

Practice full brass case loaded to around 50K, Combat bi metal case loaded to 80K psi

Practice is also cheaper but still nearly triple the cost of 5.56 which will eat way into ammo cost for units to train with.

One cartridge to do all infantry missions isn't possible, physics doesn't allow it. You want to reach way out there with a heavy bullet, then the recoil is too great to control full-auto fire. You want to have controllable full auto fire, then you end up with a 300 meter at best cartridge with a light bullet.
Best thing is to have one cartridge in a light full-auto capable carbine for most of the squad, and a different cartridge that can also be used for sniper fire and for your general purpose machine gun. Yes, it's 'bad' logistics to have two cartridges, but it's the only way to satisfy all the requirements.

Interesting feedback.

He didn't say much about the scope. Everyone here keeps talking about the rifle, which in my opinion is the least interesting development and least likely to have much of an impact. It was adopted to do one thing, deliver a bigger bullet, further, with combat accuracy.  

The bigger picture:
1. The optic. How does having this optic, a long with the new helmets and night capabilities change things? Is the average Soldier able to get more hits on targets behind cover? At targets further away? The reduction in ammo is worth it, if you get a higher percentage of hits with the optic that should enable more accurate shots. I am also under the presumption (from the Garand Thumb video) that the optic is very easy to use and virtually dummy proof.

2. The suppressor. Is it really worth the weight and length? What's the C2 and coordination improvement like? What's the effect on the enemy in the field trying to find and engage maneuver infantry using suppressors? I know nothing about this, have seen no experiments or studies or data.

I'm really hoping the military figures out a way to make good use of this gear and it gives them an advantage.

It seems for the entirety of the history of the US military, we have been satisfied to give our men on the ground doing the fighting, dieing and winning / losing of the war; similar equipment to the enemy. Well fuck all that. I want you guys to have Gucci shit that no enemy has. No one has a problem spending trillions on stealth aircraft to keep a few hundred pilots safe. Well I have no problem spending billions getting better optics, rifles, ammo, and all the other infantry gear that our war fighters need. The NGSW deal may in part or in full fail... But just the fact that it exists is a major win. I think it's the first time that the peacetime military has tried to do anything to get our actual war fighters better stuff. So I like it regardless.

Overall a good perspective.

The USMC, of all organizations, did some studying/experimenting on this a few years ago. I think they made the concluding thoughts public; don’t remember how public they made the testing/studies. They did it with fairly heavy guns and ~1.5lb suppressors, and still found the suppressors to be beneficial enough that they should be issued widely to the force.