05-04-2011, 08:24 PM
Stan,
My opinion is that this whole push for environmentally-friendly ammo is simply the entrenched communists within our national "leadership" using the economic warfare angle against us under guise of environmental friendliness. Regardless, Joe will have what he has to do the job. I have no issues with M855 as it is for general use. Designated Marksmen should have Mk262 available to them.
The longer 6.5 bullets could provide the same tracer burn or comparative to 7.62 NATO, and 800m will cover most engagements with the belt-fed guns, but will require a longer bullet to house the magnesium for a good burn. A larger bolt with 3 huge lugs like the Sako 75 would help run a higher pressure load if the Grendel were used in a belt-fed MG. Since there are so many restrictions on machinegun ownership, we are limited in how much RDT&E we can do because of the costs associated with obtaining an 07 mfg license under an FFL, whereas we can tinker around with this cartridge in our AR's all day long.
As far as future assault rifles go, I don't think we should get so hung up on the caliber for that, especially as the trend moves to more and more modular systems with caliber-change options that can be determined by the purchasing authority of whoever is buying them (read as countries, not subordinate commands). As for the US, I think the M4 works great, but just needs a rifle-length free-float tube and the A1 trigger mech. That burst system has got to go. The focus should really be on reducing weight for the guys carrying belt-fed weapons, and something like the Grendel seems to show promise in at least providing a replacement for the current 7.62 NATO GPMG's, and maybe even the SAW at the same time.
I say this having carried and employed the M60, SAW, and M240 at different stages in my career-all from a dismounted perspective where it was SOP to distribute linked 7.62 to other members of the Platoon or Squad. 100rds of linked 7.62 weighs at least 7 lbs, and the basic load for the gun was usually 800-1200 rounds for the 2-3 man gun team. Units in the Afghanistan AOR that conduct dismounted patrols have been sacrificing basic loads due to the weight of the IBA, plus the thin air in many high altitude locations. When guys from the 505th PIR got back from their deployment there in 2002, they briefed us in the 325th AIR on their kit selection, and said that they actually were reducing the basic load of riflemen significantly to cut weight.
LRRPF52
My opinion is that this whole push for environmentally-friendly ammo is simply the entrenched communists within our national "leadership" using the economic warfare angle against us under guise of environmental friendliness. Regardless, Joe will have what he has to do the job. I have no issues with M855 as it is for general use. Designated Marksmen should have Mk262 available to them.
The longer 6.5 bullets could provide the same tracer burn or comparative to 7.62 NATO, and 800m will cover most engagements with the belt-fed guns, but will require a longer bullet to house the magnesium for a good burn. A larger bolt with 3 huge lugs like the Sako 75 would help run a higher pressure load if the Grendel were used in a belt-fed MG. Since there are so many restrictions on machinegun ownership, we are limited in how much RDT&E we can do because of the costs associated with obtaining an 07 mfg license under an FFL, whereas we can tinker around with this cartridge in our AR's all day long.
As far as future assault rifles go, I don't think we should get so hung up on the caliber for that, especially as the trend moves to more and more modular systems with caliber-change options that can be determined by the purchasing authority of whoever is buying them (read as countries, not subordinate commands). As for the US, I think the M4 works great, but just needs a rifle-length free-float tube and the A1 trigger mech. That burst system has got to go. The focus should really be on reducing weight for the guys carrying belt-fed weapons, and something like the Grendel seems to show promise in at least providing a replacement for the current 7.62 NATO GPMG's, and maybe even the SAW at the same time.
I say this having carried and employed the M60, SAW, and M240 at different stages in my career-all from a dismounted perspective where it was SOP to distribute linked 7.62 to other members of the Platoon or Squad. 100rds of linked 7.62 weighs at least 7 lbs, and the basic load for the gun was usually 800-1200 rounds for the 2-3 man gun team. Units in the Afghanistan AOR that conduct dismounted patrols have been sacrificing basic loads due to the weight of the IBA, plus the thin air in many high altitude locations. When guys from the 505th PIR got back from their deployment there in 2002, they briefed us in the 325th AIR on their kit selection, and said that they actually were reducing the basic load of riflemen significantly to cut weight.
LRRPF52