Optimized Caliber

[LRRPF52]

How? As far as ammo capacity is concerned, I saw nothing in the video to indicate they would've been handicapped by being armed with 6.5-7mm carbines with magazines of 25-rd capacity.

One of the biggest things on small unit leader's minds is how much ammunition they have among the Team, Squad, or Platoon. You may not have picked it up, but you can hear one Joe give his ACE report as only having 100rds, and they were barely into the fight. If you have pushed the FLOT (Forward Line of Own Troops) to the extent that there is a vulnerable gap between you and your supporting elements to the rear, if any, you start to become hyper-aware of your unit's ammo status, believe me.

You don't want to be left out flappin' in the wind like sitting ducks, so this soldier and small unit-level logistics constraint is a very real factor for dismounts. Having a larger caliber carbine or rifle would guarantee the following:

1) Less ammo capacity per space/weight
2) Less maneuverability
3) Less capacity/willingness to pursue the fight according to logistics limitations

Handicapped

You can also see how having a different caliber for all the riflemen would be quite meaningless, and how important organic indirect assets are, like the grenade launchers. It is very difficult to get into a good firing position in these scenarios, since that will become a bullet magnet really quick. They were discussing a squad attack battle drill, where one element maneuvers as the other lays a base of fire, but there seemed to be a lot of hesitation, when it needs to be executed with little or no specific instructions.

5.56 = longevity to press the fight, since there is more capacity to carry ammo. Could this unit have been well-served with DMR's? Probably. Maybe they had them, and we just didn't see it. Either way, they would not have the endurance to press the fight if they had limited capacity. Carry a basic load of and intermediate cartridge, then carry one in 5.56, and it will start to make sense as you make initial contact, then maneuver to the next position, then do it again, then check your status to see you have 3 mags left, which is time to slow down and think about where you are, where your support is, etc.

Try that with riflemen carrying 7.62 NATO rifles and they are spent really quick. Same goes for AK's, although you can carry a little bit more ammo with the AK compared to 7.62 NATO battle rifles. Now a DMR tasked to provide discreet support with well-aimed fire at targets of opportunity is one thing, your Joes with carbines need to press the fight as these guys were. This is why I like the 8x30rd magazines bare minimum basic load for Infantry, although I personally carried more without issue.

To match that load with 7.62, you would need 12x20rd mags, which is not feasible with many genotypes other than 6ft+ Northern Germanic descendents of Vikings, Slavs, Pacific Islanders, and other large-statured, high muscle-density men with a warrior spirit.

[stanc]

One of the biggest things on small unit leader's minds is how much ammunition they have among the Team, Squad, or Platoon. You may not have picked it up, but you can hear one Joe give his ACE report as only having 100rds...

You're right, I did not catch that. Still didn't hear it on the second viewing. Must be very faint?

Having a larger caliber carbine or rifle would guarantee the following:

1) Less ammo capacity per space/weight
2) Less maneuverability
3) Less capacity/willingness to pursue the fight according to logistics limitations

Handicapped

Yet the Marines maneuvered and fought in Vietnam using M14 rifles and 20-rd mags.

And before that, riflemen somehow managed to maneuver and fight in WWII with the M1 Garand and basic load of 10x8-rd clips.

Perhaps it's more a matter of adapting to the weapon and ammo, than to a real need for a specific caliber?

You can also see how having a different caliber for all the riflemen would be quite meaningless...

No, I don't see that. What do you mean?

...your Joes with carbines need to press the fight as these guys were. This is why I like the 8x30rd magazines bare minimum basic load for Infantry, although I personally carried more without issue.

To match that load with 7.62, you would need 12x20rd mags, which is not feasible with many genotypes other than 6ft+ Northern Germanic descendents of Vikings, Slavs, Pacific Islanders, and other large-statured, high muscle-density men with a warrior spirit.

Well, I'm pretty sure nobody here advocates a return to 7.62x51, but shouldn't 8-10x25-rd mags of an intermediate cartridge ought to be tolerable?

[BluntForceTrauma]

If it were decided that both an intermediate cartridge, call it the 6.5 Grendel, and 30-round magazines were desirable, I'd add a half-inch to the length of a redesigned 65G mag so that we now have 30-round 65G mags and call it good. Yes, we'd next have to deal with the problem of the extra weight.

John

[JASmith]

If the Grendel were already the service cartridge, going to the varmint cartridge would likely not happen because folks would see the small number extra rounds argument not being enough to be worth the bother.

This is a corollary to the observation that the round-for-round effectiveness improvement realized by going to the Grendel is not sufficient to warrant replacing the 5.56 NATO.

I have reluctantly come to agree with LRRPF52. Our best chance for seeing a new military cartridge is in the LMG.

[LRRPF52]

Yes, the Marines maneuvered and fought for a while against the enemy in the early days of the Vietnam War, but then their combat endurance was significantly increased with the adoption of the M16. The weight and length handicap of the M14 was one of the main factors in adoption of the M16, as was the increased ammunition capacity.

I can't stress enough how important magazine capacity is among dismounted infantry units. As a kid, I remember reading every LRRP, SF, Force Recon, SEAL, and first-person account of deployments to Vietnam. In one book, a LRRP described a particular firefight when his team had been compromised....

"I was down to 10 mags...." That was 200 rounds back then (10x20rd mags). That made a very distinct impression on me, since I had been collecting TA-50 from early childhood, and had my own full set of LC-1 ALICE gear, knowing full well what space would be taken up with 200rds of ammo.

Units equipped with M14's for every rifleman were extremely limited in their ability to press the fight...basically, you might make two bounds and you're done, at which point in time you have to stay in place and let the trail unit by-pass you to press the fight, as you wait for a re-supply. This creates more demand on number of bodies to press the fight, lulls in fire that allow the enemy to escape, and confusion as the spent unit tries to pass on enemy disposition, direction, and distance to the passing unit.

The caliber used by riflemen to press the attack doesn't warrant anything larger because they are already closing with the enemy as a numerically-superior force. Most of the fire is effective because of psychological persuasion, especially since riflemen don't have a ton of practical marksmanship training.

Another over-looked factor is how disorienting large-caliber muzzle blast is to your buddies left and right. 5.56 is the most minimal offender in this respect, but is still somewhat of a problem to be dealt with in close proximity to friendlies who are trying to keep the enemy's location and movements fixed, which is a fleeting game with very little positive results usually.

[stanc]

I have reluctantly come to agree with LRRPF52. Our best chance for seeing a new military cartridge is in the LMG.

I don't see how that is a viable option. It would mean adding a third caliber to the system, something that has historically and universally been rejected.

[stanc]

Another over-looked factor is how disorienting large-caliber muzzle blast is to your buddies left and right. 5.56 is the most minimal offender in this respect, but is still somewhat of a problem to be dealt with in close proximity to friendlies who are trying to keep the enemy's location and movements fixed, which is a fleeting game with very little positive results usually.

AH!!! MY EARS!!! (3:56)

[video=youtube;y4N2Xz5uICE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4N2Xz5uICE[/video]

[LRRPF52]

The question is: How long are we willing to milk the longevity out of 7.62 NATO? Is there any receptiveness to replacing it, given its entrenchment in vehicle-mounted systems, and favorable barrel life?

The reality is that 7.62 NATO will be around for at least the next 10-15 years at a minimum, and is not likely to be looked at as a problem due to the mistaken thinking that carbines & 5.56 are broken. As the bean-counters and corrupt procurement vultures try to replace 5.56, they meet immediate institutional resistance from Special Operations units in the US, England, Australia, Northern Europe, and Eastern Europe. Even the majority of combat arms troops report that 5.56 does what it is intended to do, and state satisfaction with it.

It's very difficult to show the military what it needs, because whoever is making that call has their own idea of what is needed. I think the biggest potential benefits to dismounted Infantry would be a totally new LMG concept as I have described, a multi-shot grenade launcher like the Marines have adopted, and a platoon-level organic indirect fire asset that is precision-guided: basically a small mortar that the lead fire team can lase onto target. That would be a big game-changer. No need to dial-in the tube...just point in the general direction of the enemy and let the lead team guide the munition. Air-burst and other types of warheads would be great for a fleeting enemy of dismounts in the open.

[LRRPF52]

AH!!! MY EARS!!! (3:56)

[video=youtube;y4N2Xz5uICE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4N2Xz5uICE[/video]

Great video....probably one of the best I've seen so far. Several of these SASR guys are using Knight's QD suppressors on their M4A1's. It's a bit nose heavy with the 14.5" barrel, which is why the CQBR uppers came out, but not everyone has those. Remember: These guys' country uses a licensed copy of the Steyr AUG as its service rifle...so why are they using M4A1's, and in 5.56 NATO to boot?

There were a lot of things one could learn from watching just the first 1:45 of that video. About 6 years of training and experience was put into play in just those 105 seconds...their procedures in the air, reacting to contact before they even touched down, use of cover and concealment, muzzle discipline, employment of the 203, approaching the objective and how to favor your approach to a structure.

Excellent video really. Only thing that would be nice to have would be a thermobaric SMAW-D, and just turn that turd hut into dust, but I digress.

The hearing loss issue just illustrated what I was talking about, even with electronic muffs. A larger bore weapon is much worse in close proximity. I can't really hear much of anything when my left ear is up when my right ear is on the pillow, because of an AK burst within 3ft of my left ear in 1995.

Regular units will not be a good place to issue suppressors, because of the associated problems that occur with them if not attached and maintained carefully...i.e. baffle strikes, baffle fatigue, "loss" of items by Joe, etc. There was a big push within the past 7 years to issue a can to every Joe, and it went away quickly. A Grendel carbine would only increase the hearing loss issue.

[LRRPF52]

Here's the video I meant when I heard the guy say "I'm down to 100rds.", which is very common when you press the fight.

[video=youtube;KdcNWW7sFyk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdcNWW7sFyk&feature=related[/video]

[stanc]

It's very difficult to show the military what it needs, because whoever is making that call has their own idea of what is needed. I think the biggest potential benefits to dismounted Infantry would be a totally new LMG concept as I have described...

It might help if you could show them the difference. I know that the CQM videos you posted made a far bigger impression on me than all of the forum posts on the controllability issue. However, for this issue it would require building your proposed 6.5 LMG, which would be quite an expensive undertaking.

...a multi-shot grenade launcher like the Marines have adopted, and a platoon-level organic indirect fire asset that is precision-guided: basically a small mortar that the lead fire team can lase onto target. That would be a big game-changer. No need to dial-in the tube...just point in the general direction of the enemy and let the lead team guide the munition. Air-burst and other types of warheads would be great for a fleeting enemy of dismounts in the open.

Those sound like very good ideas. Guided mortar rounds have been developed in 81mm and 120mm. Doing the same for 60mm would be more difficult, but may be technically possible. The challenge would be convincing the bean counters that it'd be worth the cost.

[stanc]

Great video....probably one of the best I've seen so far. Several of these SASR guys are using Knight's QD suppressors on their M4A1's. It's a bit nose heavy with the 14.5" barrel, which is why the CQBR uppers came out, but not everyone has those. Remember: These guys' country uses a licensed copy of the Steyr AUG as its service rifle...so why are they using M4A1's...

I don't know for certain why, but I think the reasons you've given sound logical: weight, size, handling, ergonomics, etc.

...and in 5.56 NATO to boot?

Ah, I can answer that in one word, and it has nothing to do with controllability. It's logistics, pure and simple. They use 5.56 NATO because it's the standard caliber for Western nations.

If the US had fielded the M16 in 6.5 Grendel back in the 1960s, that cartridge would've then been adopted by NATO in the 1970s. The M4A1 carbine would today be chambered in 6.5 NATO, and that's what the spec ops guys would be using, not 5.56x45.

Also, you would have had part of your wish fulfilled: FN would've made the Minimi in 6.5 NATO, which means the M249 would have had sufficient performance to replace the M60 as was originally planned. There would've been no requirement to create and field the heavy M240B. Everyone would be using 6.5 LMGs for infantry, and 7.62 NATO would have faded away long ago.

So, in this alternate timeline you wouldn't be here arguing for a 6.5 LMG, you'd be on m4carbine.net calling for M4 carbines to be converted from 6.5 NATO to .223 Remington...

[stanc]

Here's the video I meant when I heard the guy say "I'm down to 100rds.", which is very common when you press the fight.

Okay, I can hear it there. Except it appears to me it is the M240 gunner who says that, not one of the riflemen.

Even so, you have a good point. I recall reading (on the old forum?) of a Marine veteran of combat in Vietnam who attributed his unit's survival in some battles to the large number of rounds that could be carried with the M16.

[Tony Williams]

Guided mortar rounds have been developed in 81mm and 120mm. Doing the same for 60mm would be more difficult, but may be technically possible. The challenge would be convincing the bean counters that it'd be worth the cost.

Actually, not a problem. The current ATK and GD-OTS guided mortar rounds use standard bombs with a fuze/guidance unit screwed in the standard fuze aperture. This will fit in 60mm mortar bombs as well. The only issue will be whether the cost of the fuze is worth it for the small bang - it might be, for arming small UAVs for instance (which is where the current interest in guided 81mm bombs comes from).

[stanc]

I have reluctantly come to agree with LRRPF52. Our best chance for seeing a new military cartridge is in the LMG.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that's true.

What course(s) of action can we take to advance the idea?

[LRRPF52]

For the sake of discussion, let's assume that's true.

What course(s) of action can we take to advance the idea?

Prototype, RDT&E, then demo against 7.62 NATO GPMG's in scenarios ranging from Close Combat to traditional long-range machinegun transition ranges, plus barrier defeat demonstrations. The biggest hurdle is to get them to ask for it, rather than show them it's needed and have them say, "Yeah, nice system. We'll give you a call."

[stanc]

Prototype, RDT&E, then demo against 7.62 NATO GPMG's in scenarios ranging from Close Combat to traditional long-range machinegun transition ranges, plus barrier defeat demonstrations.

That's a good summary of what needs to be done in total, but we'd need at least a six-figure budget for all that.

What I'm asking is what can we do, with the limited resources available to any of us?

[stanc]

All of the creative thinkers in this forum, and not one doable idea on how to make this happen???

[sgt_murf]

To the layman, we are basically re-visiting the EM-2/.280 Enfield.

Ya noticed that too????? aka .280 British version one is realllllll close to the Grrrrr
But I figured I would get FLAMED and BBQ over mentioning it.......... wait why is everyone holding those torches

[JASmith]

At the risk of getting some of that toasty warmth myself, the difference between the .280 and our favorite is that the 6.5 does it with a light enough bullet to really separate it from the .30 caliber in terms of ammunition weight and recoil.