6.5 Grendel Forum
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Printable Version

+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 (/showthread.php?tid=13123)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 04-06-2017

Personal photo:

[Image: 14CrowellinOverwatch.jpg]

[Image: ranger-sr-25.jpg]

[Image: ranger-mk11-mod-01.jpg]

[Image: Zepeda_Ranger.jpg]



If only someone would issue out 7.62 SASS rifles, then we could over-match these bugger-eaters.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 04-06-2017

[Image: 3884b7c9a2653874d5244cb2b738303c.jpg]

[Image: 812296-afghanistan-bolt-action-isaf-mili...xm2010.jpg]

[Image: 47513_1174375415238_1703658191_349780_5757125_n.jpg]

[Image: pfNko8O.jpg]

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 04-06-2017

[Image: 153207a35293c3bd3019983a52072646.jpg]

[Image: 266852_154571994614566_100001852986529_3...2609_o.jpg]

[Image: sniperfight.jpg]

[Image: 10931629_917014991643174_224941031829119...&strip=all]

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 04-06-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:[Image: pfNko8O.jpg]


If only someone would issue out 7.62 SASS rifles, then we could over-match these bugger-eaters.
Well, that IS essentially what the article says is being considered, except they would be issued to ALL riflemen in a BCT, not just the designated marksmen and snipers.

The only question is, is the report true or false?

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 04-06-2017

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/04/05/breaking-us-army-considering-going-back-1954-interim-7-62mm-infantry-rifle/

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 04-06-2017

I'm going with April Fool's joke at this time.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - 85_Ranger4x4 - 04-06-2017

ahillock Wrote:Based on economics and availability, my guess would be this:

[Image: a04_19675373.jpg]

[Image: w2MOPrN.jpg]

[Image: 1efa8832-fb15-44b4-9979-700c4f62c5ad.jpg]

[Image: tumblr_nk6mrggTQp1u9heyso1_1280.jpg]

Draganov's have been in circulation since the 60's... I am sure there are a few of them floating around.

That said it is kind of sad to see those poor sniper rifles though, as the owner of a '43 ex sniper I would love to get a complete one someday.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 04-06-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:I'm going with April Fool's joke at this time.

Yup!

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 04-06-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:I'm going with April Fool's joke at this time.
Heh, heh. I might buy into that notion, if the article had been published on April 1st, instead of the 5th.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - ahillock - 04-06-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:I'm going with April Fool's joke at this time.

Nope.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 04-07-2017

If it's serious, then whoever authored the idea needs to be fired and sent into a new line of work, like I would respond to bands that sounded terrible, out of tune, vocalist singing embarrassingly flat. Go sell your equipment at the pawn shop and forget this ever happened.

Imagine my AGs and ABs with 7.62 NATO rifles, let alone the RTO, key leaders, combat medics, FOs, combat engineers, my freaking grenadiers in the fire teams, Javelin gunners.

What a colossal and monstrous abortion someone has conceived....again.

You know how many 7.62 NATO mags most guys even in SOCOM will carry, with all the other crap? 4-5 on their kit, maybe some more in an assault pack.

I call that the "die in place" combat load, and several people have almost done exactly that because of it. If they weren't exfiled by rotary wing, it would have been an overrun situation.

Make chance contact en route to some objective, spend at least one mag on the initial return fire at the far ambush while key leaders and trail elements figure out what the 3 Ds are. Maneuver, using another mag or 2 and hope it isn't a bloody nose with a planned counter-attack.

After an initial chance contact like that, you can literally be close to black if you showed up with (5) 20rd 7.62 NATO mags like that. You still haven't even done your mission, and are located somewhere along the infil stage of movement.

Now you need resupply, unless you're cool with taking mags off your buddies in the trail elements during consolidation and reorganization, putting your unit at an average of 80 rounds per man.

Real smart. This is one of those rare cases where I will cue the draped coffin consequence, because that's how you get draped coffin redeployment, as opposed to having a fighting chance with a real basic load.

Do people not think this through?

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 04-07-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:Do people not think this through?
I think that you're getting needlessly upset over an idea that will probably never amount to anything more than a stimulating discussion in internet gun forums.

[Image: 55404476.jpg]

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Texas - 04-07-2017

I have not seen or heard of a TDP or solicitation on any such weapon.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 04-07-2017

Texas Wrote:I have not seen or heard of a TDP or solicitation on any such weapon.
Perhaps the idea has not yet reached that stage?

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Lightning8 - 04-07-2017

Every time I see this type thread, I am reminded of Ranger school in 1981 when I "volunteered" to carry a M14, the heavy mags, and the heavy ammo for the Mountain phase. The m14 was used as the "squad automatic weapon" in those days. I was very happy to give up that M14 and carry a M16A2 for the rest of the class (when I was not carrying a M60). Most people who think 308 or such "battle rifles" are cool never had to carry one every day, day after day. You carry one a whole lot more than you shoot one.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Drift - 04-07-2017

It goes both ways. The Germans are putting a 5.56 on their new Puma IFV, not a 7.62. And since the Puma weighs in at 30+ tons and has a 1000 horsepower engine that extra 2or3 pounds they are saving will be irrelevant compared to the loss of capability.

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 04-10-2017

Possible Interim Battle Rifle w/25-rd mag

[Image: IMG-20170411-WA0001-184588.JPG]

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - 85_Ranger4x4 - 04-12-2017

LRRPF52 Wrote:Do people not think this through?

Who are we talking about again? LOL

Lightning8 Wrote:Every time I see this type thread, I am reminded of Ranger school in 1981 when I "volunteered" to carry a M14, the heavy mags, and the heavy ammo for the Mountain phase. The m14 was used as the "squad automatic weapon" in those days. I was very happy to give up that M14 and carry a M16A2 for the rest of the class (when I was not carrying a M60). Most people who think 308 or such "battle rifles" are cool never had to carry one every day, day after day. You carry one a whole lot more than you shoot one.

I do think they are cool. I would love a Garand or a M1A (or even a '73 trapdoor). I know they are big bulky and awkward but heck, there is a ton of history behind them and that is cool to me. In their day they were top of the line but time marches on...

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LR1955 - 04-12-2017

Lightning8 Wrote:Every time I see this type thread, I am reminded of Ranger school in 1981 when I "volunteered" to carry a M14, the heavy mags, and the heavy ammo for the Mountain phase. The m14 was used as the "squad automatic weapon" in those days. I was very happy to give up that M14 and carry a M16A2 for the rest of the class (when I was not carrying a M60). Most people who think 308 or such "battle rifles" are cool never had to carry one every day, day after day. You carry one a whole lot more than you shoot one.

L8:

Same thing in 1976. M-14A1E-2 I believe. I am convinced they made us carry it because it was heavy. It didn't cycle when fired. Did yours actually work? If not, I bet you got the same one I carried five years earlier.

LR55

US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Lightning8 - 04-12-2017

LR1955 Wrote:L8:

Same thing in 1976. M-14A1E-2 I believe. I am convinced they made us carry it because it was heavy. It didn't cycle when fired. Did yours actually work? If not, I bet you got the same one I carried five years earlier.

LR55

Actually, the only redeeming quality for me was that it shot significant flame out of the barrel when firing blanks. May or may not have been used to motivate "OPFOR" to surrender Smile. They did not trust us with live ammo - we were extremely sleep deprived.