07-11-2011, 07:18 PM
LRRPF52 Wrote:There's nothing really wrong with 5.56 NATO....Those are useful confirmations of where Tony's understanding has moved to. We all (especially yours truly), learn with time, experience and improved knowledge.
...The real area for improvement is in our Light Machineguns, General Purpose Machineguns, and sniper rifles. As you might have seen before in the discussion, I'm a huge proponent of fixing this area of small arms chambering from the 7.62 NATO to something lighter, with equal or better ballistics.
Where I continue to be stuck is "How do we treat the enormous investment in vehicle-mounted 7.62's?" By the time you add up the machine guns on HMMV's and other wheeled vehicles, light armored vehicles, plus mini-guns on helicopters and AF gunships, you have an enormous stock of weapons. One could speculate that the mounted application also accounts for the bulk of the 7.62X51 ammunition consumption.
Proponents of the mounted application will likely advocate for improved 7.62X51 ammunition instead of a newer, lighter cartridge and caliber combination. Further, the 147-150 grain bullet was arrived at to reduce the recoil in shoulder-fired applications more than, I believe, from keeping equipment from being shaken apart.
Should we then advocate both the lighter, still highly capable cartridge while pointing out that eliminating the 7.62X51 from the dismounted role creates an opportunity for adopting a heavier, more effective bullet for the mounted role?