US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills
anybody care to put together a prototype for the new gun/ammo combo?
u.s. out-armed in afghanistan?
- Thread starter $tinkle
- Start date
wasnt that Army working on a 6.x mm round/rifle a few years ago as a replacement?
Give all the ground troops over there 50mm guns. Problem solved, Geneva be damned.
Ummm, Geneva what? It's Hague, not Geneva, and Hague doesn't apply to caliber (or most any other aspect of a modern weapon) no matter that they're still teaching machine gunners that it does. (What's a 50mm, anyhow?? Sounds pretty damned big to carry...)
Pretty sure NATO 7.62 will do the job they want, and both the round and the rifles are available in the current inventory.
But if they're trying to theorize an intermediate rifle that'll carry what the M16 can and hit as hard as the M14, hmmmm...interesting idea, but you don't get something for nothing, but then again, I'm no ballistics expert. Probably best to keep a squad armed with a mix of weapons whatever the case.
(Note that I am of the opinion--fact, really--that caliber doesn't matter with regard to "stopping power" for pistols unless you're talking hunting wild animals with a handgun. Different story with rifles for sure.)
Pretty sure NATO 7.62 will do the job they want, and both the round and the rifles are available in the current inventory.
But if they're trying to theorize an intermediate rifle that'll carry what the M16 can and hit as hard as the M14, hmmmm...interesting idea, but you don't get something for nothing, but then again, I'm no ballistics expert. Probably best to keep a squad armed with a mix of weapons whatever the case.
(Note that I am of the opinion--fact, really--that caliber doesn't matter with regard to "stopping power" for pistols unless you're talking hunting wild animals with a handgun. Different story with rifles for sure.)
Last edited:
Time to bust out all those M14's that are sitting in the grass bunkers at Aberdeen. Or better yet, call FN and order up some FAL paratroopers.
There is a 6.5mm round out there, but it's still in development stages. With the limited number of weapons out there that chamber the 6.5mm round, even fewer that are battle ready, I doubt introduction of a 6.5mm weapon into the U.S. aresenal in this decade.
My suggestion would be to phase in a weapon that has similar characteristics to an M4 or M16 so as to minimize familiarization. I'd say a good way to go is to add a few AR-10's to each squad. The trigger sear from an M-4/M16A2 should easily swap over to the AR-10. Most accessories, including grips, sights, slings, etc... should be 100% compatible with the M4/M16 and the AR-10.
FYI... AR-10 looks and functions just like an AR-15, but is chambered in 7.62 x 51mm.
M4
AR-10
There is a 6.5mm round out there, but it's still in development stages. With the limited number of weapons out there that chamber the 6.5mm round, even fewer that are battle ready, I doubt introduction of a 6.5mm weapon into the U.S. aresenal in this decade.
My suggestion would be to phase in a weapon that has similar characteristics to an M4 or M16 so as to minimize familiarization. I'd say a good way to go is to add a few AR-10's to each squad. The trigger sear from an M-4/M16A2 should easily swap over to the AR-10. Most accessories, including grips, sights, slings, etc... should be 100% compatible with the M4/M16 and the AR-10.
FYI... AR-10 looks and functions just like an AR-15, but is chambered in 7.62 x 51mm.
M4
AR-10
Last edited:
Here's that 6.5mm round (pictured center) aka. the 6.5 Grendel
5.56 on the left and the 7.62 on the right.
5.56 on the left and the 7.62 on the right.
we were testing the 6.8 in iraq and it will be tossed over I bet. it only takes a few components to convert the m4, its the cheaper way to go. I am willing the army will just send out new complete uppers.
An inexpensive and effective conversion or rolling out some old M-14 would make some sense. I therefore predict that the military will come up with a more expensive and less effective alternative. Contractor profitability is not maximized through common sense.
the m14 is all I used in iraq but there arent enugh to go around, It may be possible that springfield armory will get a contract for socoms
That culture has known nothing but war since the 80's, probably earlier but I"m a poor histroy study. Soviet union tested all their weapons on them. They beat the russians out back then, of course thanks to our help. It will take more than guns and troops stun them.
USMC just selected the HK 416 as its replacement for the SAW.
Interesting choice from a traditional infantry team/squad tactics standpoint...changing from a belt to a box mag definitely decreases firepower on tap. But makes sense based on the urban fighting experiences of recent vintage; open-bolt belt-feds weren't doing well in house-to-house, apparently, and no one was doing squad rushes over hundreds of yards of ground to take an objective, so the need for sustained suppression on the team/squad level wasn't quite as great. (Or maybe they got too used to having HMMWVs with M2s on call all the time...?)
Anyhow, point being, this gun is to be in the USG's inventory soon. Wondering if in time, they're not going to try and change over to it for the general-purpose rifle in whatever calendar...
Interesting choice from a traditional infantry team/squad tactics standpoint...changing from a belt to a box mag definitely decreases firepower on tap. But makes sense based on the urban fighting experiences of recent vintage; open-bolt belt-feds weren't doing well in house-to-house, apparently, and no one was doing squad rushes over hundreds of yards of ground to take an objective, so the need for sustained suppression on the team/squad level wasn't quite as great. (Or maybe they got too used to having HMMWVs with M2s on call all the time...?)
Anyhow, point being, this gun is to be in the USG's inventory soon. Wondering if in time, they're not going to try and change over to it for the general-purpose rifle in whatever calendar...
I'm hazarding a wild guess that there are plenty in storage...oldschool early vietnam vintage wooden ones, not re-tooled super-slick modern jobs mind you. Just a matter of getting them to the right people.
Wondering if the answer isn't mixing a few 7.62s in with the team/squad level weapons mix (Designated Marksmen) and not trying to replace 5.56 wholesale as the infantry rifle.
Most of those were swooped up through the CMP though. There's 5 or 6 guys at military matches at my club who shoot CMP M14s. .308 Winchester is GREAT round (7.62 could be win mag, or 30-06, there's more to a cartrage than caliber) The only issue with .308 is that the ammo is heavy. I would say the 6.5X (the wildcat round that David Tubb developed) Is a 22-250 necked up to a 6.5. I know it's a GREAT shooting round out to 1000 yards while still being lighter than a .308 Winchester. I'm just not sure how the energy is down range at distance.
Why not just start pushing SCAR-Hs into frontline use? Cost?
(note: been reloading since I was 12y/o)
When we refer to 7.62 (more correctly the 7.62 NATO), we're referring to the cartridge 7.62x51mm. Although the projectile, overall case length, and neck length are nearly identical, the slope of shoulder of the case is different after the round has been chambered and fired.
True, you can chamber and fire 7.62NATO cartidges in .308WIN chambered firearms safely and effectively, but the inverse is not true (.308 in a 7.62 firearm). The headspacing of a 7.62 firearm is much shorter than that of a .308, which means if you use a .308 cartridge in a 7.62 firearm, you can damage the cartridge upon chambering, possibly leading to bad stuff happening.
If you don't believe me about the headspace/case shoulder stuff, do the following.
- fire a 7.62NATO cartridge in a .308 firearm
- reload the shell
- try to chamber in a 7.62NATO firearm, you'll notice that it will jam
Hmmmm,.... a .50 BMG I think you mean.
Carry a box of .308 .223 or .50 BMG around sometime.
I wonder if a new cartridge is really needed or just a lighter weight rifle that uses .308 or something like a .300 win short mag.
I didn't realize that. I fallow what you are saying, I have a dylan 650 that I do pistol with and I use a single stage for the rifle. I have bought 7.62 ammo in the past and ran it through my model 70, I didn't realize they were difference. I'm a target shooter and the only military gun I have is an M1 garand.(note: been reloading since I was 12y/o)
When we refer to 7.62 (more correctly the 7.62 NATO), we're referring to the cartridge 7.62x51mm. Although the projectile, overall case length, and neck length are nearly identical, the slope of shoulder of the case is different after the round has been chambered and fired.
True, you can chamber and fire 7.62NATO cartidges in .308WIN chambered firearms safely and effectively, but the inverse is not true (.308 in a 7.62 firearm). The headspacing of a 7.62 firearm is much shorter than that of a .308, which means if you use a .308 cartridge in a 7.62 firearm, you can damage the cartridge upon chambering, possibly leading to bad stuff happening.
If you don't believe me about the headspace/case shoulder stuff, do the following.
- fire a 7.62NATO cartridge in a .308 firearm
- reload the shell
- try to chamber in a 7.62NATO firearm, you'll notice that it will jam
this is the best idea i think and one of my personal favorite rifles around
the M468 is a cheap alternative and can be easily be converted from a normal M4/M16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmiK_k0na6I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bmiK_k0na6I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
horrible show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NzIOaXlnzxQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NzIOaXlnzxQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
God bless Ronnie Berrett and all his fantastic contraptions.
The 1911 is turning 100 Y/O next year( I know JMB designed it in 1907 or something) and Manufacturers are starting to pay tribute. You see what Kimber did? (homer simpson drool noise)
Ronnie Barrett needs to do a 1911 with Unicorn horn dust finish that is 1MOA out to 600 yards.
The 1911 is turning 100 Y/O next year( I know JMB designed it in 1907 or something) and Manufacturers are starting to pay tribute. You see what Kimber did? (homer simpson drool noise)
Ronnie Barrett needs to do a 1911 with Unicorn horn dust finish that is 1MOA out to 600 yards.
Fire and manouever, backed by appropiate indirect fire and air support will win the day. As long as the boys are allowed to do their jobs. Weapons are weapons, choke off the supply of arms and ammo coming from the outside and you will win the war.
that will never happen with countries that basically have no boarders.
unless we cut off ALL mountain passes and donkey paths, illegal arms will still flow into these third world countries from other third world countries.
Yes, but by attrition if you ake away the bulk of it, and the technology, the bad guys will run out of arms/ammo soon enough.
the Russians tried that and arms still filtered through pretty easily. technology? they are taking on the all mighty US military with 30+ year old weapons and basic guerrilla tactics.
of course cutting off supply of their weapons would theoretically stop them, but that could never happen
With FULL Paki/Afghani co-operation, it is doable. UAVs can loiter on target for hours, when a U2 picks up and confirms weapons runners, throw a missile at them, bingo.
But to nswer the original question, we arent outgunned technically speaking, but htere are a hell of alot of guns over there...
But to nswer the original question, we arent outgunned technically speaking, but htere are a hell of alot of guns over there...
which wont happen in the foreseeable future
Change "foreseeable future" to "ever"...
qft.
if we didnt half-ass things there, maybe, just maybe, it could happen. but then again, Mother Russia couldnt do it at the height of it's power, i doubt we can
Militarily speaking, we won. Our enemies were defeated, all major engagements won via proper appliction of dominant fire power, maneouver, mass and firepower. The Northern Alliance was driven from power, along with their Taliban allies.
Winning the peace, that is another story.
Had GWHB listened to his military advisors, specificlly Colin Powell (Powell Doctrine anyone?) cruise missiles and tactical bombing would have done the dirty work in A-ghan...
Winning the peace, that is another story.
Had GWHB listened to his military advisors, specificlly Colin Powell (Powell Doctrine anyone?) cruise missiles and tactical bombing would have done the dirty work in A-ghan...
the WMD's in Iraq were a priority i guess
How did he whole WMD thing turn out anyway? What was the final count?
Conflict only serves political purposes. There is no such independent thing as "winning militarily." You achieve your political goals or you don't.
USA 5100
Iraq-0
Oh please, you know what I mean. All initial military objectives were met, the enemy forces were defeated in battle and driven from the field. The US military has done its job, the politicians who started the wr have failed in theirs.
So Daddy Bush is happy now?
Sweet, where are my Frogskins...
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this round yet or not but hello, 6.8SPC anyone? Amazing ballistics