User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:01:26 AM EDT
[#1]
Is it a chambering/caliber issue or a projectile issue. Genuinely curious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:07:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6.5x55 Ackley Improved End thread. 6.5 Skan and it's body taper, lends a significant margin to primary extraction reliability in field conditions over the AI. The 75-100fps advantage of the AI, only extends max effective range by 30-50 meters or so, and can more than be compensated for with loading to pressures more in line with Modern steels, than the limits placed on the old M95/M96 friendly pressures. I love me some 6.5X55AI in a modern Bolt action, but we NEED to get back to designing Military cartridges for reliability, as a part of the "Package". The old 6.55X55 was designed to be reliable in non-rotating extractor Rifles and machine guns, and proved to be superior. That Sexy Swede body taper is there for a reason.;) Blowing it out to a straight body, and removing the body taper makes no sense on a infantry chambering. The Reduction of neck surface area and resulting reduction in bullet "Pull", also reduces reliability in Magazine fed Automatic rifles, and plays hell with consistency/accuracy in field conditions. It's one thing to put the handloads on the dial gauge and sort for run out, it's another to crank them out by the millions on a Commercial line, package them, and then get them to the front lines. The taper, gentle shoulder angle, and neck bearing surface of the 6.5X55 was no accident. It's perfect as is. ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:42:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryFor most of the "outrange/overmatch/they'retoofarawayformetohitwithmyM4" issues, 60mm is the right answer. Get a lighter-weight 60mm and issue more of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:52:21 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, it's just as fat...if you use the .280/30 version, after the British increased case head diameter (and general case diameter), upping the powder charge in order to try and appease the "more power!" demands of the US Army. The earlier versions were a bit narrower. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Brits had it right back in the 50's with the .280 British. The earlier versions were a bit narrower. If one is concerned about ammo load for riflemen, .280 British is definitely not the way to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:57:19 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it a chambering/caliber issue or a projectile issue. Genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 1:59:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
6.5x55 Ackley Improved End thread. If you can't single feed to preserve your 5 rounds on board for high intensity firefights and speed reload your empty you'll get kilt in da streets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:17:39 AM EDT
[#7]
I've always thought the whole idea of a 308 is backwards, since we already had the M14, and it's useful life was...short.
However, now that I've learned that troops pretty much never use automatic fire in their M4's, I have to admit that I'd rather have less ammo and longer range over (controllable) automatic fire. Wasn't the entire point of the 5.56/AR-15 to allow them to carry more ammo, so they could waste more ammo by firing automatically? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:32:41 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What exactly does 30.06 do that 308 can't? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
7.62x51 is okay, better than nothing I guess mark me down for 30.06 every time Let's face it, you want something that will your enemy down NOW! While their horse-assing around with 5.56, or 7.62x39 you were smart, and brought enough gun. You want something that will truly reach out and "touch" someone!  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:54:14 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryEvery soldier, a Mortar Maggot.
High Angle Hell. Out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 4:35:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck, do these idiots think Infantry fight in a vacuum with only rifles?  Most people who aren't infantry have no clue how infantry operates, or the concept of having different tools for different tasks. I once had a lengthy debate with a pogue officer who was enamored with the 7.62 because the AP rounds can penetrate an MTLB. I politely explained that anyone who uses a carbine against armour deservers to be on the receiving end of a KPV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 4:39:31 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
2" mortar, for when you don't want to set up that bipod and baseplate. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/2-inch_mortar_team_of_the_2nd_Battalion%2C_East_Lancashire_Regiment%2C_keep_up_covering_fire_during_the_advance_on_Pinbaw%2C_December_1944.jpg Range of HE, illumination, smoke, and signal rounds available. Weapon only weighed around 10-11lb, depending on model. Range wasn't great (often cited 500-600yd), but that could probably be improved these days. Rounds weigh around 1.5-2.5lb each depending on type and variant. I'm betting the HE version has a lot more bang than any grenade, whether thrown, launched, projected, or fired, ever--though a lot less than a 60mm, obviously, at 5/6 the diameter and 2/3 the weight. India still makes a version (see here) that they claim has almost 1km range--still a lot less than a properly emplaced 60mm from what I'm told, but the whole shebang still weighs under 5kg and setup is nearly instant. Might it actually be handy for smaller-unit (i.e. platoon on down) use, or is it just not worth the effort compared to the 60mm? Seriously curious for answers from folks who have some experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 4:42:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not so fast Gustav.... 6.5 Skan and it's body taper, lends a significant margin to primary extraction reliability in field conditions over the AI. The 75-100fps advantage of the AI, only extends max effective range by 30-50 meters or so, and can more than be compensated for with loading to pressures more in line with Modern steels, than the limits placed on the old M95/M96 friendly pressures. I love me some 6.5X55AI in a modern Bolt action, but we NEED to get back to designing Military cartridges for reliability, as a part of the "Package". The old 6.55X55 was designed to be reliable in non-rotating extractor Rifles and machine guns, and proved to be superior. That Sexy Swede body taper is there for a reason.;) Blowing it out to a straight body, and removing the body taper makes no sense on a infantry chambering. The Reduction of neck surface area and resulting reduction in bullet "Pull", also reduces reliability in Magazine fed Automatic rifles, and plays hell with consistency/accuracy in field conditions. It's one thing to put the handloads on the dial gauge and sort for run out, it's another to crank them out by the millions on a Commercial line, package them, and then get them to the front lines. The taper, gentle shoulder angle, and neck bearing surface of the 6.5X55 was no accident. It's perfect as is. ;) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
6.5x55 Ackley Improved End thread. 6.5 Skan and it's body taper, lends a significant margin to primary extraction reliability in field conditions over the AI. The 75-100fps advantage of the AI, only extends max effective range by 30-50 meters or so, and can more than be compensated for with loading to pressures more in line with Modern steels, than the limits placed on the old M95/M96 friendly pressures. I love me some 6.5X55AI in a modern Bolt action, but we NEED to get back to designing Military cartridges for reliability, as a part of the "Package". The old 6.55X55 was designed to be reliable in non-rotating extractor Rifles and machine guns, and proved to be superior. That Sexy Swede body taper is there for a reason.;) Blowing it out to a straight body, and removing the body taper makes no sense on a infantry chambering. The Reduction of neck surface area and resulting reduction in bullet "Pull", also reduces reliability in Magazine fed Automatic rifles, and plays hell with consistency/accuracy in field conditions. It's one thing to put the handloads on the dial gauge and sort for run out, it's another to crank them out by the millions on a Commercial line, package them, and then get them to the front lines. The taper, gentle shoulder angle, and neck bearing surface of the 6.5X55 was no accident. It's perfect as is. ;) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 4:45:18 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always thought the whole idea of a 308 is backwards, since we already had the M14, and it's useful life was...short. However, now that I've learned that troops pretty much never use automatic fire in their M4's, I have to admit that I'd rather have less ammo and longer range over (controllable) automatic fire. Wasn't the entire point of the 5.56/AR-15 to allow them to carry more ammo, so they could waste more ammo by firing automatically? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 6:28:55 AM EDT
[#14]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 7:07:27 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Weird, I am around long range shooters on a daily basis. I am the only in the group that owns or shoots 30.06 and that's only because I own Garands. I will have to study up on the 1500 yard 30.06. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
208-220 grain bullets with a higher BC and range than the .308  I will have to study up on the 1500 yard 30.06. ETA: I wouldn't imagine that either is an optimal primary fighting round for an infantry carbine with the selection we have today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 7:35:40 AM EDT
[#16]
In about 1978, or so, we were doing some training for the upcoming ARTEP.
At one of the training stations I was being questioned while the CO (a West Point graduate/captain) and the Battalion Commander (also a West Point graduate AND a Viet Nam veteran) were walking along observing the training. They stopped at the station I was on and listened as I was asked questions and answered them while performing certain functions required at that station. I clearly remember the CO jumping in to correct me about one of my answers. All I could say in response was, "Sir, I don't know about you, but if someone is shooting at me I want the bastard dead, not wounded." The CO got pissed at me. The Battalion Commander smiled, gave me a wink and walked off towards the next training station (which forced the CO to cut the ass chewing session short so he could chase the Bn CO down for more brown nosing). Oh, yeah, we carried M14's, not M16's. Having shot deer with .308's and groundhogs with .223's I know which bullets to use to break big heavy bones and penetrate (shoot clean through) a large animal. And yes, I carry an AR15 with me on road trips these days. With lots of 30 round magazines and lots of ammo. Shoot it till it stops threatening you. I'm prepared for that. If my wife had a .308, instead of an AR15, I'd be taking my GII on road trips instead of the AR15 (for ammo commonality). Same reason I take the CZ 75 Compact on road trips now instead of my .40 S&W P07. She carries a CZ 75 Compact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 7:57:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I feel like I'm on a hampster wheel . . . even better 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 7:59:04 AM EDT
[#18]
The average Infantryman doesn't need a heavier rifle.
I'm a 240 assistant gunner. If we're taking rounds from distance I'm slamming down a 240 tripod, getting out my binoculars, and my gunner is putting hate easily on target out to 1000m. 1000m hits are pretty easy with a 240L, a tripod, and a good AG calling hits and making adjustments. Even the most basic of light infantry heavy weapons squads can put hits on target out to 1000m. The M4 does fine out to 500. I'm already carrying 400 rounds of belted 7.62 on top of my 210 rounds of 5.56. I don't need it to be any heavier. Well actually, sometimes they stick me with a mossberg 500 like as an AG imma go breach doors. I'd rather have a SCAR and 210 rounds of 308 than carry two long guns Being an E4 sucks |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:12:14 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know first hand the .gov is prepping for a bid request for a fuckload of 338 LM for machine gun ammo. So...guess they want to write a big check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 11:30:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The average Infantryman doesn't need a heavier rifle. I'm a 240 assistant gunner. If we're taking rounds from distance I'm slamming down a 240 tripod, getting out my binoculars, and my gunner is putting hate easily on target out to 1000m. 1000m hits are pretty easy with a 240L, a tripod, and a good AG calling hits and making adjustments. Even the most basic of light infantry heavy weapons squads can put hits on target out to 1000m. The M4 does fine out to 500. I'm already carrying 400 rounds of belted 7.62 on top of my 210 rounds of 5.56. I don't need it to be any heavier. Well actually, sometimes they stick me with a mossberg 500 like as an AG imma go breach doors. I'd rather have a SCAR and 210 rounds of 308 than carry two long guns Being an E4 sucks Not sure why you would even be given a shotgun as an AG as you will primarily be sitting on your ass in an overwatch position, protecting the decisive operation. As an AG I would have loved to carry a mk17 with an elcan or even a vortex 1-6. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 11:35:32 AM EDT
[#21]
I didn't listen to the whole thing, but from what I understand the switch has more to do with the AP ability of some new 7.62 round they have developed rather than ballistics or wounding. The army is worried about the Russians and Chinese having body armor that can stop conventional ball and AP ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 11:45:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.30-06 Will absolutely out-do the .308 every time. With those bullets in an '06 it is easily a true 1500 yard shooter. Simple reason for it....case capacity |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 12:26:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Small arms conflicts with infantry riflemen don't take place at 1500 yards. Next. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
.30-06 Will absolutely out-do the .308 every time. With those bullets in an '06 it is easily a true 1500 yard shooter. Simple reason for it....case capacity 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 12:29:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Why not have some people carry 5.56mm rifles/carbines and some people carry 7.62mm, depending on job, role, and location requirement?
In Korea my lowly Marine grandfather had access to guns shooting .30 carbine, .45 ACP, and .30-06 and somehow the logistics train did not fall off the tracks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:40:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Bump
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:52:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never understood why western troops always humped all that crap around for miles on foot when we're supposed to be all mechanized and mobile and techno savvy. They end up getting chased around by a bunch of 3rd world goat herders with Dushka's welded to the beds of 20 year old toyotas and nissans, and they never huck around a bunch of gear, just AK's and RPG's and any ammo they can hold. Seems like we don't do guerrilla fighting anymore, we tend to just dress up as big slow targets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 3:53:30 PM EDT
[#27]
LSAT or some other true caseless munition seems to be the true step forward.
Everything else is just Defense Contractor Welfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 4:57:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not have some people carry 5.56mm rifles/carbines and some people carry 7.62mm, depending on job, role, and location requirement? In Korea my lowly Marine grandfather had access to guns shooting .30 carbine, .45 ACP, and .30-06 and somehow the logistics train did not fall off the tracks. Going from the current 3 rounds in the platoon to 4 isn't the answer. Going to 2 is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 5:20:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not with a 556 they don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 5:29:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, the small of my back fucking randomly hurts a lot. I don't think troops will be forced to carry MORE weight. They'll just have much much less ammo. And it will virtually add no barrier penetration benefit. Which is better suited for LAWs, AT-4s, Mortars, Arty, or CAS anyway. Fuck, do these idiots think Infantry fight in a vacuum with only rifles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 7:35:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hits on target are the most important thing. We have a hard time getting troops to hit shit out at 200 meters. And that's with a super controllable 5.56 rifle with hardly any recoil. Ok, so going with heavier ammo, troops will substantially have less chances to make hits. Because instead of carrying 210 rounds, they got 120, or whatever. Also, it's been said that because of higher velocity, 5.56 is more deadly. That is why pistols make poor weapons to kill. They are way heavier than 5.56 ammo, but have an 80% survival chance. It's because they move way slower than rifle bullets. And 5.56 is screaming at like 3100 fps with the m855a1. And 7.62 NATO is 2,700 fps with a long as 26" barrel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If combat load is the primary concern, do you believe that 5.56 is the best there is to offer? Honest question. I personally feel that it's close, but not quite perfect in terms of weight/size to power ratio. Though, I'm not quite sure what is better. I'm willing to appreciate the overall efficiency of things like the 6.5 calibers, but the concept of what is needed should be decided first. Is long range accuracy/terminal ballistics the priority or is having more ammo more important? We have a hard time getting troops to hit shit out at 200 meters. And that's with a super controllable 5.56 rifle with hardly any recoil. Ok, so going with heavier ammo, troops will substantially have less chances to make hits. Because instead of carrying 210 rounds, they got 120, or whatever. Also, it's been said that because of higher velocity, 5.56 is more deadly. That is why pistols make poor weapons to kill. They are way heavier than 5.56 ammo, but have an 80% survival chance. It's because they move way slower than rifle bullets. And 5.56 is screaming at like 3100 fps with the m855a1. And 7.62 NATO is 2,700 fps with a long as 26" barrel. M80a1 won't go subsonic until 900 yards @ 59 degrees F, 0' altitude and a G7 BC of .1824 We have ammo right now in .30 that is as fast as 5.56. Please don't compare modern 5.56 loads to 50 year old 7.62 loads. M80a1 is very effective when it hits tissue. Much greater than m855a1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:01:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've noticed that most of the people advocating for a larger caliber are the ones who don't hump that shit around all day. 7lbs per 100 adds up quick. Edit: And the fact that they do not realize that they are advocating a net decrease in firepower is the funniest part of this thread, followed only by imaginary Infantry engagements at 1500 yards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:08:51 PM EDT
[#33]
Why would the high brass want to switch to a harder hitting round?
Maybe they foresee fighting China and/or Russia in the future and our potential enemies have created body armor counters to 5.56. Also maybe the Army has better .30 cal rounds in development and have not released the info. Also realize we have not fought a modern army in a long time. It is bold to assume we will always have air superiority in the next war. Calling in for an air strike is meaningless if we don't control the air and the enemy is hitting you with rounds and your 5.56 can't hit them back. I've also learned that armies adjust to the weapons they have. If they have less rounds, they will fire less rounds in suppressive roles. They will aim more if they have to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:22:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nor with a 7.62x51. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not with a 556 they don't. Between the awesome BC and powerful bullet we could own people out to 10 miles at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:34:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've noticed that most of the people advocating for a larger caliber are the ones who don't hump that shit around all day. 7lbs per 100 adds up quick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:42:07 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The average Infantryman doesn't need a heavier rifle. I'm a 240 assistant gunner. If we're taking rounds from distance I'm slamming down a 240 tripod, getting out my binoculars, and my gunner is putting hate easily on target out to 1000m. 1000m hits are pretty easy with a 240L, a tripod, and a good AG calling hits and making adjustments. Even the most basic of light infantry heavy weapons squads can put hits on target out to 1000m. The M4 does fine out to 500. I'm already carrying 400 rounds of belted 7.62 on top of my 210 rounds of 5.56. I don't need it to be any heavier. Well actually, sometimes they stick me with a mossberg 500 like as an AG imma go breach doors. I'd rather have a SCAR and 210 rounds of 308 than carry two long guns Being an E4 sucks Hmmm...Sorry, couldn't find a link for the Lafette |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:42:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know first hand the .gov is prepping for a bid request for a fuckload of 338 So...guess they want to write a big check. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:48:35 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M80a1 is 3,050 fps out of a 22" barrel. The steel in it is almost as hard as tool steel. M855a1 is 2,970fps out of the m4. Not 3,100. M80a1 won't go subsonic until 900 yards @ 59 degrees F, 0' altitude and a G7 BC of .1824 We have ammo right now in .30 that is as fast as 5.56. Please don't compare modern 5.56 loads to 50 year old 7.62 loads. M80a1 is very effective when it hits tissue. Much greater than m855a1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:49:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would the high brass want to switch to a harder hitting round? Maybe they foresee fighting China and/or Russia in the future and our potential enemies have created body armor counters to 5.56. Also maybe the Army has better .30 cal rounds in development and have not released the info. Also realize we have not fought a modern army in a long time. It is bold to assume we will always have air superiority in the next war. Calling in for an air strike is meaningless if we don't control the air and the enemy is hitting you with rounds and your 5.56 can't hit them back. I've also learned that armies adjust to the weapons they have. If they have less rounds, they will fire less rounds in suppressive roles. They will aim more if they have to. And they will fail to suppress the enemy, then run out of ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 8:55:10 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixed it for you. The RFQ for the 338 Lapua was for something else. The bid introduction was for 338 Norma, which in a belt fed MG is pretty redonkulus. I'm psyched to start load development 
Load testing, fuck yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:00:57 PM EDT
[#41]
I think we should have both plus an SMG round.
Or a 6.5 in the long mag well, a mid sized mag well for an intermediate cartridge, and a light compact weapon with an effective round in smaller magazines so that specialty solders can carry more loaded magazines and ammunition than infantry with good supply lines and reinforcements.. The ability carry a whole lot of ammo loaded made the m1 carbine very popular. You can carry a good 4 or 6 30 round m-1 carbine sized magazines for 2 AR-15 magazines, so, you get a whole lot more ammo in a space for the same amount of cumbersome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:08:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, they are advocating half as many rounds. Infantrymen are already as much weight as they can. Edit: And the fact that they do not realize that they are advocating a net decrease in firepower is the funniest part of this thread... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've noticed that most of the people advocating for a larger caliber are the ones who don't hump that shit around all day. 7lbs per 100 adds up quick. Edit: And the fact that they do not realize that they are advocating a net decrease in firepower is the funniest part of this thread... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:08:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it a chambering/caliber issue or a projectile issue. Genuinely curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:18:07 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't listen to the whole thing, but from what I understand the switch has more to do with the AP ability of some new 7.62 round they have developed rather than ballistics or wounding. The army is worried about the Russians and Chinese having body armor that can stop conventional ball and AP ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:27:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone in this thread is actually paying attention. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I didn't listen to the whole thing, but from what I understand the switch has more to do with the AP ability of some new 7.62 round they have developed rather than ballistics or wounding. The army is worried about the Russians and Chinese having body armor that can stop conventional ball and AP ammo. No one wants to get hit, body armor or not. Bullets drilling holes in their attire will make them hunker down, and heavy weapons do the heavy lifting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:27:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok I was half right. The RFQ for the 338 Lapua was for something else. The bid introduction was for 338 Norma, which in a belt fed MG is pretty redonkulus. I'm psyched to start load development
Load testing, fuck yeah. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:36:36 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't be silly. Proponents of a 7.62 battle rifle are well aware that ammo load would decrease. They just consider the improved body armor defeat capability to be worth the tradeoff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:38:21 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For most of the "outrange/overmatch/they'retoofarawayformetohitwithmyM4" issues, 60mm is the right answer. Get a lighter-weight 60mm and issue more of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
A quickly deployed mortar or M203 grenade launcher would have eliminated that threat. But in practice, my particular brigade rarely used these items. We didn't even carry them with us on patrol. My thoughts are that out to 200 yards, use your rifles. Beyond that, a grenade launcher or 60mm is a better tool. With moderate training, when I had an M203, it was routine to put a grenade through a window at 200 yards, which would have been ideal in the outskirts of Baghdad. Perhaps other units used their weapons differently, but we did not. Being fairly fresh out of training, I did not understand why we did not better utilize some of the tools we had access too. Overall, we did ok though. Possibly our fires were limited due to the highly populated urban environment, and instead we used what we were most familiar with - rifles and LMG's. Having been trained as a grenadier for a bit though, there were a number of times when our rifles were not effective, but one or two M203's would have done the trick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:41:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ironic that at a time when the Army is being proactive in small arms procurement Arfom GD doesn't like it. Arfcom GD, wrong on guns just about every time
The ideal weapon per Arfcom GD guides would be a 400$ AR with a 22LR conversion; all the same features as that fancy HK, super light ammo that you can carry a lot of, and it's really affordable!  The Army specializes in being retarded though, so no surprise there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2017 9:48:07 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok I was half right. The RFQ for the 338 Lapua was for something else. The bid introduction was for 338 Norma, which in a belt fed MG is pretty redonkulus. I'm psyched to start load development
Load testing, fuck yeah. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
