US Army Considers Adopting an Interim Battle Rifle in 7.62NATO: eventually adopt 6.5

[pinzgauer]

I didn't say the M249s were not being kept in the inventory. I said that the rifle squad's M249s were being replaced by M27s.
As for confirmation, there were official announcements at the time. But, all I could find in a quick search today is this article:

So time will tell, as this gets into semantics. One of the big rumors was that the M27 M249 thing was just to get it into procurement channels, then the argument becomes easy to have them issues to all marines (surprise).

Even with the structural differences in Marine squads/platoons, the need for a LMG does not go away. So we'll see if it sticks. I predict you will see 249's in the Marines resurface, just wait. :-)

:confused: I said the M240B and PKM are equal. You said the M240B outranges the PKM "in pretty much every situation."

Probably the term I should have used would have been "is more effective". For some very specific reasons:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]9870[/ATTACH] and ammo quality.

I'm not going to get into details beyond that. Just very clearly: Joes who use the 240's and train side by side with guys using the others, would never swap.

The PKM thing appears to be mythos, similar to the AK had in VN days. And yes, we lost some to PKM's, and will. But not because of weapon differences. If you want to know why, go read "To Quell the Korengal" or "Choosen Few". (Both good reads on their own merit).

What I want is not the issue. Enemy 7.62x54 rifles and machine guns outrange 5.56x45 carbines and machine guns.
That range overmatch is what originally prompted people to advocate a 7.62x51 rifle to replace the 5.56x45 carbine.

Those "people"... :-) No one I know who is currently serving thinks this is a good idea, or even a need. And I'm talking IN types carrying the guns. It would be about like issuing M14's... lose the capability for realistic burst fire, and only a nominal range increase over the M4's and none over the SAWs.

Do I think a Grendel or slightly larger (or even Grendel at bolt gun pressures) would have been better than 5.56 way back. Probably, knowing about Iraq and A'stan. But when you are solving the VN problem it would have been hard to make the case.

But with the heavier bullets, improved ammo, barrels to support it (SOCOM, etc), 5.56 in M4's and SAW's are meeting the current mission requirements. And where it doesn't, the 240's kick in.

I could see maybe a DMR thing with 7.62 at the squad level. But give up the suppressive capability of the 249? Or shorter range burst fire from the M4's? Nope.

An Army line platoon has (6) 249's and (2) 240B's. The 249's are quite effective out to 600-800m as currently operated. Do we think Joe's with super7.62 will be able to outshoot a 249 with optic and bipod? (OK, the super7.62 would probably have an optic as well). But won't be doing full auto. Probably not a bipod. Not belt fed.

Carbine and saw replacement in 7.62 for line units won't happen anytime soon, I'd bet money on it. For multiple reasons. And I predict a move to 6.5whatever carbine/SAW will not happen until some breakthrough in weight/loadout occurs. Which does not appear to be on the near horizon.

Meanwhile, for some unit's, if they want/need a 7.62 carbine they can currently get them and use them. And for some situations, they make sense. As a binary 5.56 OR 7.62 (but not both), see what they pick. We pretty much already know that answer. :-)