Kswhitetails Wrote:Ask yourself. The quoted post referenced the value and exception for mortars specifically in the previous sentences. I think it was skimmed? Not that I could blame anyone, this is page 13 of a good discussion.

hdrolling Wrote:Oh no, I read it all. Still had to find a spot for a shameless "high angle hell" plug somewhere, I understood what he was saying.

hdrolling Wrote:As a retired 11c Mortar man, I would have to disagree with this statement

LRRPF52 Wrote:Gents,

There has been healthy debate throughout the development of small arms in history regarding appropriate calibers and weapon designs. This is a pretty hot topic in the Grendel community since the Grendel seems to offer external trajectory ballistics that are very similar to 7.62 NATO and some of the common .308 Match loads, but out of a much smaller rifle/carbine package with significantly less recoil, and increased ammunition carrying capacity.

That naturally has led some to propose that we could replace both the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO cartridges for dismounted Infantry troops.

I personally do not see a need to replace 5.56 NATO as it has so many advantages that are beneficial to riflemen in an Infantry Squad, however...

I do see a huge need to replace the entire SAW/5.56 system and the M240/7.62 NATO system, since they hold squads and platoons back from being maneuverable. With the recent developments in efficient cartridge & bullet design, I think we're ready to start pushing in the direction of a new Multi-Role Light Machinegun concept with a cartridge that is smaller and lighter than 7.62 NATO, with better ballistic potential as far as trajectory is concerned.

stanc Wrote:It looks like the Army agrees. https://taskandpurpose.com/army-next-generation-squad-weapon/

P.S. Better take your blood pressure meds before reading.

LRRPF52 Wrote:A lot of our military discussion here have often ended up with the conclusion that we need a much lighter, Platoon and even Squad-level mortar system.

These systems already exist, like iMortar.

[video=youtube;2vkHwLxhOgw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vkHwLxhOgw[/video]

Combine it with PGM, and warhead size is not as important, especially in semi-permissive ROE.

bj139 Wrote:I don't think the 2nd Amendment covers mortars.

Sticks Wrote:Funny.

Can't use lead bullets anymore, but by god, we will litter the battlefield with plastic that will never ever corrode away.

bwaites Wrote:So we still need eco-friendly?

I agree, its tougher to do, but its still doable. In fact, a solid copper bullet would work. 180 grain Barnes with a BC or .473 can be loaded easily to 2700 FPS with easily available powders. Using the newer Superperformance powders, I'd bet you could get over 2800 out of them, at standard length.

Bumping to 200 grains loses several hundred feet per second, but is doable, with 2600 FPS velocities at standard length.

Sticks Wrote:Funny.

Can't use lead bullets anymore, but by god, we will litter the battlefield with plastic that will never ever corrode away.

rickt300 Wrote:Eco friendly just cracks me up as we are talking about the imminent destruction of human tissue before and after the penetration of various barriers. That said Okinawa was literally covered with bullets fired in WWII, and this I saw in the 70's. Anyone ever hear anything about the ecosystem of Okinawa being damaged by large amounts of lead? When I was there most of the war damage had been grown over though there was still plenty of munitions to be found if you wanted to look.

Popeye212 Wrote:Now you really can't expect em to think past the lead thing.

hill37 Wrote:what do you think the best material would be?