+- 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)
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-08-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:A big problem is that hardly anyone in the civilian world has even a rudimentary understanding of what considerations there are, and are influenced by gun rag opinions based on anecdotes from disgruntled wood and steel fans from long ago who might have held some rank that was enough to give them more clout for their article in American Rifleman. Then those opinions get carried into the service by new volunteers, who think they have it all figured out because they read an article, or heard it from Cleatus at the local gun shop.:confused: You are the only person in this thread who has discussed full-auto for the ICSR.
An example relevant to this thread is this continuous discussion of a select-fire 7.62 NATO rifle...
LRRPF52 Wrote:Why is that in 2017, we don't have people that can easily look at previous select-fire 7.62 NATO service rifles and realize that professional armies like the UK and US deactivated or never used the select-fire feature on the SLR L1A1 (FAL) or the M14?The M14 had a "drop comb" stock, so naturally it had extremely poor controllability.
When I drew my first issued M14 from the arms room, it was capped where the selector should have been because the Army learned back from the start that it's just not feasible to equip a 7.62 NATO service rifle with automatic select fire.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Now they've made it a requirement for the ISCR.That's hardly surprising. Select-fire has been a requirement of most armies that adopted 7.62 battle rifles, even in the 21st century.
Select-fire capability was a requirement of Turkey's new MPT76 battle rifle, as well as on New Zealand's designated marksman rifle.
Note that even SOCOM, which you said "has zero plans to go that direction," required full-auto capability on the SCAR-H battle rifle.
[video=youtube;EtgI9XepZQ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgI9XepZQ8[/video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtgI9XepZQ8
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 09-09-2017
One of the biggest let downs in my youth was when I shot my first full auto 308 rifle, an FN FAL from Armex. Great noise maker but completely useless if trying to hit anything past 5 yards. I'll have to agree with 52 on this one LOL. That said, the Scar heavy is suppose to be one of the lightest recoiling 7.62X51 rifles made.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 09-09-2017
Select-fire is one of the ISCR requirements. SCAR had the requirement because they wanted a modular system that could change between the calibers, so the select-fire would be there for 5.56 NATO in the lower group, not because SOCOM was asking for select-fire 7.62 NATO.
Everybody knows that select-fire 7.62 NATO is retarded from a lightweight service rifle.
It's uncontrollable in the FAL, the G3, the M14, the AR10, the SCAR (without a brake), and any other non-belt fed weapon. It also eats through your minimized basic load faster than you already can't afford to do on semi.
Why are we having this regressive, bad idea conversation over and over again?
Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.
The only thing that would make sense would be a 2-round burst FCG in that size of a gun for movers, shooting suppressed, with a suppressor engineered for the cartridge and system.
Again, we're back to fighting with the weight and recoil of an albatross cartridge that has no other place than a DM role in the Rifle Squad.
The only thing that makes sense to me is that they know we're headed into a full-scale war, and want to distract rifle makers with the ISCR from something better so they can keep a staple cartridge for the more important systems fed well (mini-guns, vehicle-mounted co-ax MGs, M240s).
If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed. Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find. The Russians have to be laughing at us right now.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-09-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:Anyone who is advocating select-fire from a 7.62 NATO service rifle needs to share that logic with me, because I would really be interested in hearing the rationale behind it.If you want to know for sure, you would have to ask the Army Chief of Staff, or someone involved with the ICSR program. My thinking is that full-auto capability would be wanted if (as I suspect) they plan to use some ICSRs in the automatic rifle role, as was done with the M14A1.
LRRPF52 Wrote:If someone really believes this is a good idea to issue select-fire 7.62 NATO rifles across the Brigade Combat Teams, we're doomed.Your continued ranting on the poor full-auto controllability of 7.62 battle rifles makes it sound as if the ICSR is meant for blasting away in fully automatic fire, when it will undoubtedly be fired almost exclusively on semi-auto, the same as is SOP with select-fire 5.56 carbines.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Watch for many overrun incidents where dudes are out of ammo, getting slaughtered like dogs in whatever cover they can find.If they come up with a practical way to carry 210 rounds, then combat endurance will be unchanged from that with the M4 carbine, thereby avoiding the feared plague of overrun incidents.
If the ICSR is only issued to units facing the Russkis, the risk of escalation to nuclear war means those soldiers will likely never be involved in any firefights. So again, no overrun incidents.
Personally, I see the ICSR program as a good thing, as lessons learned from it may result in the NGSAR being dropped in favor of a belt-fed LMG, and rethinking of CT carbine ammo power.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Joglee - 09-10-2017
Everything I've been told points to CT not being a major focus right now or for the foreseeable future.
Instead they're putting a ton of money and engineering into polymer cased 7.62 that can be applied to M80A1 and the new XM1158, then later applied to an intermediate caliber in the .264 range.
No one seems to want CT anymore.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - 6.8 klr - 09-11-2017
Right on Bro. You are spot on the >308, is it for U.S..........There is no way the .30 will ever change....It is Americas choice Cal. Period.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 09-11-2017
Hybrid polymer/metallic cases have always had issues with case separation at the joint between the 2 materials, especially in high dust environments.
The industry is apprehensive about investing in an entirely new cased telescoping cartridge infrastructure due to the initial associated costs, even though it is superior to metallic cartridges and the actions required to feed and extract them.
We're at the foothills of a possible new advancement in technology, which has a lot of gravitational pull in the current way of doing things keeping it from escape velocity. I'm reminded of the .276 Pedersen, General MacArthur, and the coming world war in the 1930s. Maybe MacArthur knew things in advance that Army Ordnance Bureau did not...
The difference is that maybe we do have the capacity to conduct finalized development of a new cartridge in the middle of full-scale war, and maybe we don't. They might be looking at strategic reserves and manufacturing centers for propellant, cases, primers, and bullets and not want to mess with that right now.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-11-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:We're at the foothills of a possible new advancement in technology, which has a lot of gravitational pull in the current way of doing things keeping it from escape velocity. I'm reminded of the .276 Pedersen, General MacArthur, and the coming world war in the 1930s. Maybe MacArthur knew things in advance that Army Ordnance Bureau did not...If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.
LRRPF52 Wrote:The difference is that maybe we do have the capacity to conduct finalized development of a new cartridge in the middle of full-scale war, and maybe we don't. They might be looking at strategic reserves and manufacturing centers for propellant, cases, primers, and bullets and not want to mess with that right now.I'm not following you. In 1932, World War II was still years in the future. In 2017, we're not in the middle of a full-scale war; just low-intensity, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - Joglee - 09-11-2017
One thing a lot overlook in this case is the main idea behind this is the ability to defeat armor.
We have significantly more M993 than we do M995.
We also do not control Tungsten mines, nor do we have enough Tungsten in US reserves to wage full scale war against a nation with armor.
Supposedly Natick has found a way to defeat armor without the need for tungsten with the XM1158.
I fully believe this is why Milley may see 7.62 as the answer, because we just don't have enough Tungsten to pump out millions and millions of M995 if we should need it during a major conflict.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 09-12-2017
stanc Wrote:If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.
There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor. The largest bomber factory in the world at Willow Run was dedicated the summer before Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2. Great timing wouldn't you say?
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 09-12-2017
stanc Wrote:If so, he must've had one helluva crystal ball. He rejected it five years before the Japanese invaded China, seven years before the Germans conquered Poland, and almost a decade before Pearl Harbor.If one were to read the diplomatic cables of the 1930s even today, it would change much of the way you view the history of that era.
I'm not following you. In 1932, World War II was still years in the future. In 2017, we're not in the middle of a full-scale war; just low-intensity, counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations.
Also, look at how many carriers were built from other ships or purpose-built in the 1930s. 3 carriers were built from 1934 to 1940, to add to the existing Langley and Lexington.
There were a lot of shifting tidal waves of the global power structure in the 1930s, in addition to the Great Depression.
I think a combination of factors came into play that prevented the .276 Pedersen from being adopted, many of them potentially more valid for the decision-makers if we were to see their perspective and what they were factoring into the process.
Either way, it retarded small arms cartridge development for the infantry rifle in the West by decades, and we still have not recovered from that opportunity, given the stinking example of the 7.62 NATO albatross around our literal necks.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-12-2017
montana Wrote:There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor. The largest bomber factory in the world at Willow Run was dedicated the summer before Pearl Harbor and our entry into WW2. Great timing wouldn't you say?1937 - Japan invades China
1939 - Italy invades Albania
1939 - Germany invades Poland
1939 - Russia invades Poland
1939 - Russia invades Finland
1940 - Germany invades Norway, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands
1940 - Germany attacks Britain
1940 - Italy invades Greece
By 1941, it didn't take a crystal ball to see that it might be a good idea to prepare for war.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 09-12-2017
There was also:
Gibara Rebellion in Cuba 1931
Manchurian Incident 1931
Greco-Bulgarin border clashes 1931
The Chinese Soviet Republic 1931-1934
Military Coup in Ecuador 1931
Republican Revolution in Spain 1931
Irgun Terrorism in Palestine 1931-1948
Kurdish Rebellion in Iraq 1932
Promoter's Coup in Thailand 1932
Sino-Japanese War of Shanghai 1932
Bonus Marchers in Washington DC 1932 (Army Chief of Staff, Douglas MacArthur, dispersed the veterans and their families and burned their camps using coordinated armor and cavalry, including shots fired and veterans slain.)
1932 was a really busy year for assassinations, conflict, skirmishes, revolutions, revolts, coups, insurrections, and protestors even within the US. Given the amount of global conflict and internal discord, it's reasonable to ask whether someone at the Army Chief of Staff level just might have been a little apprehensive about adopting a new cartridge in the middle of a Depression and uncertainty, especially if his office was privy to diplomatic cable summaries distributed to the War Department.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-12-2017
Oh, yeah. As if the Bonus March, Jewish terrorism in Palestine, a few military coups and minor rebellions in other parts of the world really factored into his decision.
Budget considerations during the Great Depression, yes, certainly. That other stuff, nah, I don't buy it.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-12-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:If one were to read the diplomatic cables of the 1930s even today, it would change much of the way you view the history of that era.I'm always glad to gain knowledge. Please cite any such cables dated before the .276 was cancelled in 1932.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Also, look at how many carriers were built from other ships or purpose-built in the 1930s. 3 carriers were built from 1934 to 1940, to add to the existing Langley and Lexington.Conversion of the Saratoga was ordered in 1922.
Construction of the Ranger began in 1931.
Construction of the Yorktown began in 1934.
Considering that Japan and Germany didn't really start "misbehaving" until 1937 and 1939, respectively, I'm not seeing a linkage.
Looks to me more like a gradual introduction of a new class of ships that the leadership recognized as superior to legacy platforms.
LRRPF52 Wrote:I think a combination of factors came into play that prevented the .276 Pedersen from being adopted, many of them potentially more valid for the decision-makers if we were to see their perspective and what they were factoring into the process.Concur.
LRRPF52 Wrote:Either way, it retarded small arms cartridge development for the infantry rifle in the West by decades...I question that. Even if the .276 Pedersen had been adopted, it would have been only marginally better than keeping .30-06 for the infantry rifle.
First, the T3E2 Garand was nearly as big and heavy as the M1 Garand, so it would still have been necessary to develop and field the M1 carbine.
Second, the ballistics would not have satisfied the SCHV folks in the Army, so we would still have ended up with the 5.56 cartridge and M16 rifle.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 09-12-2017
stanc Wrote:1937 - Japan invades China
1939 - Italy invades Albania
1939 - Germany invades Poland
1939 - Russia invades Poland
1939 - Russia invades Finland
1940 - Germany invades Norway, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands
1940 - Germany attacks Britain
1940 - Italy invades Greece
By 1941, it didn't take a crystal ball to see that it might be a good idea to prepare for war.
And this directly threatened the US how? My point is during 1940 we were in the midst of a depression yet they started building the largest bomber factory in the world based on no direct threat to the U.S.? The majority of US citizens and the administration "publicly" were in support of neutrality and did not want another replay of WW1. The powers that be had other ideas and like the 276 they probably already had their game plans in action. I know this subject can go down the rabbit hole which I don't care to go but to dismiss 52's observation is subjective at best.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-12-2017
montana Wrote:And this directly threatened the US how???? Nobody said those actions were a direct threat to the US.
montana Wrote:My point is during 1940 we were in the midst of a depression yet they started building the largest bomber factory in the world based on no direct threat to the U.S.?Hmm. Since you said "There were many crystal balls being used in the US before Pearl Harbor," it sounded to me like your point was that some people had sufficient foresight to build the largest bomber factory in the world, in anticipation of US involvement in the war that was then ongoing.
If they didn't think that the events I listed portended the distinct possibility of drawing the US into the conflict, why would they invest time and money building a bomber factory that wouldn't be needed due to the lack of a direct threat?
montana Wrote:The majority of US citizens and the administration "publicly" were in support of neutrality and did not want another replay of WW1. The powers that be had other ideas and like the 276 they probably already had their game plans in action.Undoubtedly, some "game plans" were already in action. For instance, the construction of aircraft carriers during the 1920s and mid-1930s almost certainly resulted from plans to implement new technologies, not as a reaction to events in other parts of the world.
Your bomber factory, however, was clearly a response to said events.
But, the .276 Pedersen decision, if we take MacArthur at his word, was strictly based on economics. Which is perfectly reasonable and plausible, given that the Great Depression was in full swing in 1932. To think that the minor incidents listed by Paul -- which posed no possibility of threats to the US -- would have been the basis for the decision, is illogical. Shoot, in 1873 the Army adopted a new caliber for rifles and Gatling guns, along with a new caliber for revolvers, all while fighting the Indian Wars. Yet we're supposed to think that a few coups and rebellions in other countries was reasonable cause to stop .276 adoption? Puhleez.
montana Wrote:I know this subject can go down the rabbit hole which I don't care to go but to dismiss 52's observation is subjective at best.Meh. Isn't everyone's opinion subjective?
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - LRRPF52 - 09-12-2017
stanc Wrote:Oh, yeah. As if the Bonus March, Jewish terrorism in Palestine, a few military coups and minor rebellions in other parts of the world really factored into his decision.
Budget considerations during the Great Depression, yes, certainly. That other stuff, nah, I don't buy it.
While not available to citizens, the diplomatic cables and their assessments were a normal part of the information gathering and dissemination cycle dating back to the 1920s, particularly with Japanese traffic as a focus. The War Department had been cracking Japanese Naval and Diplomatic ciphers since the 1920s.
There are many good books on this. A simple google search will turn up many hits.
You're not going to see reference to .276 Pedersen in diplomatic cables unless it was cooperation with Allies, so that's a straw man that is easily torn down.
The point is that there were plenty of conflicts and instability in the global tapestry of that era, with a particular focus on Japan, that could have factored heavily into MacArthur's decision to be apprehensive about a new service rifle and machine-gun cartridge.
I don't claim to know his thoughts on the matter, but these realities of that era make me wonder. I also understand that he would have been advised by Army Ordnance Bureau. To me, there are parallels that could be history repeating itself again with this mistake of leaning on 7.62 NATO, at the same time we are starting to make a lot of headway with far superior chamberings that deliver more hit probability, more energy on target, with less recoil, and less ammo load weight.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - stanc - 09-12-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:You're not going to see reference to .276 Pedersen in diplomatic cables unless it was cooperation with Allies, so that's a straw man that is easily torn down.There is no straw man, because I did not ask about diplomatic cables that discussed .276 Pedersen. I asked for examples of diplomatic cables during the 1930-32 period, which "would change much of the way I view the history of that era" in regard to MacArthur's rejection of .276 Pedersen.
LRRPF52 Wrote:The point is that there were plenty of conflicts and instability in the global tapestry of that era, with a particular focus on Japan, that could have factored heavily into MacArthur's decision to be apprehensive about a new service rifle and machine-gun cartridge.I'd wager there have been similar conflicts and instability in the world during every decade of the 20th century, if not during the entirety of this nation's existence. I've never seen any authoritative claims that such insignificant incidents had any effect whatsoever on adoption of a new cartridge by the Army.
LRRPF52 Wrote:I don't claim to know his thoughts on the matter, but these realities of that era make me wonder. I also understand that he would have been advised by Army Ordnance Bureau.Unless you can cite any historical record wherein MacArthur expressed concern in 1932 about war with Japan being imminent, it seems to me that we should accept his stated reason as to why .276 was rejected.
LRRPF52 Wrote:To me, there are parallels that could be history repeating itself again with this mistake of leaning on 7.62 NATO, at the same time we are starting to make a lot of headway with far superior chamberings that deliver more hit probability, more energy on target, with less recoil, and less ammo load weight.Those other chamberings are not in service. Since the goal is to increase armor-defeat capability ASAP, 7.62 NATO is a perfectly logical choice as an interim caliber.
US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5 - montana - 09-13-2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=AwntZVIoPpI