85_Ranger4x4 Wrote:I would love a Garand or a M1A... I know they are big bulky and awkward...

stanc Wrote:Big, yes. But, awkward? I must disagree. I used to have an M1A with an E2 stock. Looked exactly like that in the photo below. It had the best fit, feel, and handling of any rifle I've ever fired.







It was somewhat longer and heavier than I preferred, though, so I had planned to install a shorter flash suppressor and shorten the barrel a bit, sorta like this:





Of course, select-fire would be even better...

[video=youtube;N06ySsT2EKU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N06ySsT2EKU

mdram Wrote:264 usa info

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/10/usamu-264-usa/

MeatAxe Wrote:Here's another one, the ".264 USA" round, et al:

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/04/jim-schatz-a-path-to-overmatch-next-generation-individual-weapon-system/

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!"

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

n9nwo Wrote:"What weapons are the most common we have encountered that fire 7.62x54R?"

The Mosin Nagant, the weapon that has lost more wars than any other.

n9nwo Wrote:BTW I sort of felt that a 6.5x45 might be a better round than the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x39). But the Grendel at least works in our current rifles so less replacements of weapons, initially.

stanc Wrote:A fact that almost certainly does not matter. In the last 125 years, the US Army has never adopted a new cartridge to upgrade old weapons.

stanc Wrote:A fact that almost certainly does not matter. In the last 125 years, the US Army has never adopted a new cartridge to upgrade old weapons.

85_Ranger4x4 Wrote:1903 was updated to 30-06...

stanc Wrote:.30-06 was not really a new cartridge. It was just the .30-03 with case neck shortened slightly to accommodate the particular ogive shape of the spitzer bullet that the Army wanted to use.

85_Ranger4x4 Wrote:Pretty much a new cartridge since they had to change the chamber.

85_Ranger4x4 Wrote:Pretty much a new cartridge since they had to change the chamber.

85_Ranger4x4 Wrote:This popped up on my facebook feed just now:

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/the-days-of-the-us-militarys-obsession-with-the-5-56-rifle-may-be-numbered

Quote: “A Capability Gap exists for 80 percent of US and NATO riflemen who are armed with 5.56mm weapons,” weapons expert and former Heckler & Koch official Jim Schatz stated in a recent small arms briefing. “The threat engages friendly forces with 7.62mmR weapons 300 meters beyond the effective range of 5.56mm NATO ammo.”
“These 5.56mm riflemen have no effective means to engage the enemy.”

LRRPF52 Wrote:At least 50% of a Rifle Squad's firepower comes from weapons that aren't M4s, and they are belt-fed. 75% of a Platoon's firepower comes from the Weapons Squad, where the M240s are manned in the gun teams.

These guys making these imbecilic comments need some counter-arguements to their BS, because a lot of people, including those in the military, seem to think that Infantry Squads and Platoons walk around with everyone carrying M4s with no ability to reach out to 1800m (Max effective range of the M240 with plunging fire).

Any time you insert a dismounted unit, they will often have at least one attached sniper team, who can take anything from M110 SASS, to M2010 .300 Win Mag, and often both.

You will often cover any movement of the lead squads with the M240s in the tripods, and Snipers set up looking for any ideal enemy far ambush points, so that when someone pops up, they get 7.62 and .300 Win Mag coming their way pretty quickly.

We also did this a lot with 60mm mortars. You're going to get your bowels shoved in hard if you try to play silly games with a well-run unit that uses what the Army or USMC has provided it.

A Marine Infantry Platoon looks like a light Company in the Army, because their Rifle Squads are properly sized with 3 Fire Teams, and they task Scout Snipers to support the line all the time.

But I guess because a few riflemen per fire team are equipped with M4s makes us out-gunned against PKM and SVD. Just ignore all those guys humping 7.62 NATO weapons. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.

LRRPF52 Wrote:At least 50% of a Rifle Squad's firepower comes from weapons that aren't M4s, and they are belt-fed. 75% of a Platoon's firepower comes from the Weapons Squad, where the M240s are manned in the gun teams.

Quote:These guys making these imbecilic comments need some counter-arguements to their BS, because a lot of people, including those in the military, seem to think that Infantry Squads and Platoons walk around with everyone carrying M4s with no ability to reach out to 1800m (Max effective range of the M240 with plunging fire).

Quote:But I guess because a few riflemen per fire team are equipped with M4s makes us out-gunned against PKM and SVD. Just ignore all those guys humping 7.62 NATO weapons. That's just your eyes playing tricks on you.