US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5
Collapse
X
-
Sounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability? SMH. I would think the weight on the larger platform will be too much for some to bear. If the 5.56 has worked this long, why can't someone see the sensibility in swapping to Grendel? Just my common sense thoughts. I'm sure I'm missing something.
I may get flamed a bit by the guys that have been there and done that, but I'll take it as well as I give it!! Lol.
RichardMember since 2011, data lost in last hack attack
-
-
I wonder how many millions.of.rounds of 5.56 our military has. Will be a long.transition.
why we wound up with a .22 cal military rifle always baffled me. Guess when you are mass producing troops that have never touched a rifle in six.weeks you give them a low recoiling rifle with light ammo where they can carry a lot of it.
Comment
-
-
264 usa info
Header image: The .264 USA on a display block, flanked by 7.62x51mm (left) and 5.56x45mm NATO (right).Modeled and rendered by the author in SolidWorks.The .264 USA was designed by members of the Army Marksmanship Unit as a possible next-generation military rifle cartridge.It’s been an interesting decade for military cartridge development.just some targets for printing
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...xQ?usp=sharing
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LR1955 View PostGuys:
Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.
Comment
-
-
Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:
Recently, I've shared quite a few briefings by Jim Schatz. It's not only because he recently passed away, but also because they are so timely. We ...
Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.
Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"Last edited by MeatAxe; 04-05-2017, 08:09 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahillock View PostBecause sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.
Why wouldn't the author at least say 'Infantry School'? After all, they are the proponents of such things, particularly since the article concerned the BCT's. The guy didn't even say 'Brigade Combat Teams'.
I got a feeling this guy was on a deadline to produce X number of words for a publication and so that is exactly what he did.
LR55
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by LR1955 View PostGuys:
Something isn't right about that article. Who ever wrote it doesn't quote anyone or cite anything coming from the Infantry School or anywhere else in DoD. That ought to be an indicator. Fake news.
Jack and squat
"According to multiple sources...."
Reminds me of when Defense Review said the USMC has decided to adopt Arsenal milled receiver AKs in the middle of OIF because of reliability issues with the M16A4.
Or the time where Defense Review said the USMC just adopted the .45 GAP Glock pistols to replace M9s.
This article is total BS, concocted by someone with barely enough information to make a mess.Last edited by LRRPF52; 04-05-2017, 09:42 PM.NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by MeatAxe View PostHere's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:
Recently, I've shared quite a few briefings by Jim Schatz. It's not only because he recently passed away, but also because they are so timely. We ...
Can't say that everyone in the military has their head stuck in the sand regarding that turkey of a M4 5.56 platform. Somebody is thinking outside of the box. Unfortunately, this would necessitate totally new lowers, uppers and magazines, etc....no mention of the existing mass-produced and extensively developed 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel rounds that could use existing lowers and mags. Looks like another promising and lucrative study leading nowhere.
Result: "the M4 / 5.56 is the greatest implement of battle ever conceived!"NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
Comment
-
-
The genesis of this requirement is overmatch. The troops feel like they’re in a street fight with a guy with longer arms. The 7.62x54R cartridge gives the enemy those longer arms.
The PKM, which is used more like a squad-level LMG than a GPMG.
It's as if someone never even cared to look at the MTOE, certainly not someone who spent even a week as an 11B or 0311.
We never did anything without M60s and M240s, and since then, the Mk.48 7.62 NATO LMG has been fielded to provide more maneuverability.
But no, we need every swinging rifleman, grenadier, team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant, platoon leader, assistant gunner, ammo bearer, RTO, etc. carrying an M14 or some garbage from HK now, with less than half the basic load per weight.
Someone needs a urinalysis or education before they put things into articles, maybe some editorial oversight from someone that actually knows what's going on.NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahillock View PostBecause sometimes things can't be made public at that time point and have to be made off the record. Don't call it fake news unless you have another source(s) that contradict it and state it is false.
I have the impression the author has a snippet of information and built a story around the hypothetical. 2% is the snippet and 98% is what he thinks might happen.
Comment
-
-
It's as if someone never saw an Infantry Platoon and the weapons that are not only organic to it, but central to much of the planning, training, and operational use.
Then there is the reality that whoever wrote the article never worked with a dismounted infantry unit and our attachments.
They're talking about over-matching an enemy equipped with 17lb PKMs firing linked 7.62x54R for starters, which is something we've discussed for how many years now?
The rifleman does not do that, doesn't have the optics and training to do that, and no system that I am aware of can provide the necessary training for every rifleman to do that, which is why we have SAW gunners, gun teams, and snipers.
When gun teams and snipers go to the transition range, all we would do was practice engaging targets at distance.
Guess who goes out with Platoons when they leave the wire? Gun Teams are part of the Platoon, so them.
Every single Rifle Squad has 2 SAW gunners, who have also been upgraded with 7.62 NATO Mk.48s in later years.
As Snipers, we were almost always attached to line Platoons, or as line Platoons, we had Snipers attached. That was before widespread replacement of the M24 with the M110 too.
Nope. Soldier systems says we need 7.62 battle rifles. The level of ignorance about how things work never ceases to chafe my backside.NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO
CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor
6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:
www.AR15buildbox.com
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ricsmall View PostSounds like a waste of money to me. If you're going to transition to a completely new platform anyway, go ahead and adopt the 260 or 6.5 CM. Why go the interim route? Ammo availability?
Regarding a transition to .260, the following remarks may be of interest:
"...US SOCOM is currently conducting an operational test with .260 Remington carbines and light machine guns. ... Anecdotal feedback about the US SOCOM test of .260 Remington suggests that users are highly satisfied with it. It shoots flat and fast to deliver much better accuracy than 7.62 mm M80 and has less felt recoil. What is interesting is that ARDEC has also gone to the trouble to develop a 6.5 mm EPR bullet for it."
No formal Army requirement for the CTSAS system has been generated yet. We can assume one will follow after the results of the SAAC study are published (any day now). In the meantime, and what I imagine has been driving Textron's efforts, is that US SOCOM is currently conducting an operational test with .260 Remington carbines and light machine guns. This being the case, it would make sense to develop an analogous CT round in 6.5 mm for comparison purposes. Anecdotal feedback about the US SOCOM test of .260 Remington suggests that users are highly satisfied with it. It shoots flat and fast to deliver much better accuracy than 7.62 mm M80 and has less felt recoil. What is interesting is that ARDEC has also gone to the trouble to develop a 6.5 mm EPR bullet for it. This doesn't mean that 6.5 mm is a certainty for the next US Army caliber. I know there are people within US ARDEC who believe that, with more case capacity, 5.56 mm could be made to perform better. So a CTSAS improved 5.56 mm round could yet be...
Comment
-
-
Stan
Roger on the ammo availability. Just doesn't make sense to change platforms to go with a 7.62, then swap again to a 260 or other cartridge. Looks like bogus info so it's a moot point. The discussion you linked to on the 260 testing is encouraging though.
RichardMember since 2011, data lost in last hack attack
Comment
-
Comment