Constitutionalist Wrote:"We already have a great carbine with the M4 that does what is required of soldiers who pick through the rubble after echelons of fire in conventional war, or police neighborhoods and provinces in COIN under cover of their buddy's SAWs, M240s, M110s, M2010s, 60mm and 81mm mortars, with Reaper Drones overhead if needed."
You must be fighting different wars than the ones the US is fight now. There are no echelons of fire. There's ROEs that say you can't fire unless fired upon. Average engagement range in Afghanistan was what 350-500m? Yep- a .223 is what I want for that....
Echelons of fire for conventional war as I mentioned, or small arms with different layers of support for COIN. Small arms are very marginal in Air/Mech-dominant wars. They are very important in COIN.
For both OEF and OIF, nobody goes outside the wire without some type of 7.62 NATO weapons and radios, usually from vehicles with M2 .50 BMGs or Mk.19s on top. The most firepower any Light Infantry Battalion Commander had was his Delta Company and HHC Mortars section. Within the Rifle Companies, the most firepower is in the Weapons Squads and Company Mortar sections. Within the Rifle Squad, the most firepower is had with the SAWs. The last, least powerful weapons across all of the mix are the M4s, and they account for far less of what everyone is carrying than most people realize.
In the Infantry or SOF units conducting mounted and dismounted patrols, there is always a mix of weapons to cover the engagement distances.
For terrain found in Afghanistan, it's one thing to have MG teams, Snipers, or Mk.48 gunners with 7.62 NATO, along with .300 Win Mag or .338 LM sniper systems covering your movement.
It's another to enter and clear a mud hut in a compound looking for HVTs or insurgents. The longer range weapons provide overmatch and cover, while the carbines are used to clear shorter spaces and inside of alleys, rooms, etc.
People talking about the limitations of 5.56 in that context have rarely been in an actual unit that deploys and patrols with all of the weapons mix that is common to an Infantry Platoon, SF ODA, SEAL Platoon, or Ranger Platoon, so these conversations revert back to having to educate people that are unfamiliar with the MTOE of a unit, and the unit flexibility in weapons selection for different mission profiles (more of a SOF thing).
On the conventional side, you aren't doing anything without gun teams and usually have vehicles with turret-mounted weapons supporting you if you're dismounted, even in Light/Airborne land.
The argument about ".223 effectiveness" blows out the window for anyone who has been in the line for less than an initial enlistment.
Now for some people that were soft skills or civilians, they will argue about which cartridge is going to save the day and finally make the M4 or some new rifle the single solution to all of our problems, but anyone with deployment experience and time in that job just chuckles, especially the guys in Weapons Squad or Sniper Sections.
As to ROE: Within the same Presidential Administration, we went from, "Let the bodies hit the floor!!!", to more restrictive ROEs once the numbers of civilian KIAs mounted. Insurgents using civilians as cover to get around our ROEs didn't work when the gloves were off, but then we learned why they did that and the leash got really tight. Follow-on units who rolled through the aftermath of one particular Battalion in OIF were horrified by what they saw, and commented on it upon linking up in the North. It was primarily a combination of indirect fire assets being a bit off in their first sheaf, as well as suicidal Fedayeen hiding amongst the homes of local Iraqi civilians who didn't ask for any of this mess.
With that said, the Grendel or something with its size and ballistics would make an excellent replacement for the 7.62 NATO weapons for a number of reasons:
1. I can have M4-sized weapons that do both extended range/high hit probability where I currently employ SR25s, SCAR-Hs, Mk.48s, but still have a compact, lightweight weapon that can maneuver in the house and tight spaces like the M4.
2. I can carry more magazines and ammunition than I can with 7.62 NATO and sustain the dismounted fight longer, somewhere between what is possible with 5.56 and 7.62x39. In short, I can actually fight well and light with a 6.5 Grendel M4 profile weapon, whereas the SR25 and SCAR-H introduce issues with bulk and weight, especially once you configure them for combat with PEQs, lights, and optics.
3. My pallet weights for ammunition are significantly lighter, or have more rounds per pallet at the same weight as my pallets of 7.62 NATO.
4. My DM/Sniper Training courses can help students get valuable feedback faster on-target because they aren't losing sight picture during the shot like you do with a lightweight or even heavy 7.62 NATO Sniper System. I can also get through a multi-week shoot-heavy DM/Sniper course without loss of velocity from high round-count guns since Grendel has such a low working pressure.
5. Barrier penetration is not much different than 7.62 NATO, offering some advantages due to sectional density, especially with EPR 6.5 Grendel cartridges.
If you notice above, none of this really applies to the basic Rifleman in the Infantry Squad, or the SOF Direct Action shooter who just wants a nice little 10.3" Mk.18 blaster that he can maneuver with while meandering through tight spaces.
If you replace the 7.62 NATO weapons with 6.5 Grendel, we then run into the problem of magazines that can be inserted into the 5.56 M4s with a cartridge that won't chamber, so there is something to be said for that as well. But I like the idea of a 6.5 Grendel-like Assault Machine-gun LMG with better range than 7.62, less ammo weight, 6.5mm Semi-Auto DM/Sniper Rifles, and enhanced 5.56 carbines.
They could apply the technology from the NGSW ammunition to making a more optimized line of compact ammo and keep the guns light, rather than spiral out with these large-framed beasts shooting .270 Weatherby Magnum +P pressures with limited 20rd mags.
None of the submissions are anything I would want Rifleman and Assaulters carrying on dismounted or mounted patrols. The exception for mounted patrols would be turret-mounting the .338 Norma Magnum MMG, but they are burning barrels with those faster than the SEALs burn .300 Win Mag pipes.
By the way, my handle pic is of me with my Squad in OIF1, 2003. I know a ton of things have changed since then, but I'm not talking about this subject from theory.
