PDA

View Full Version : Army zeroing in on new rifle



speedman
08-25-2004, 12:33 AM
COLUMBUS, Ga. — The U.S. Army's pursuit of a weapon to replace the aging M-16 rifle is still on track despite a failed congressional attempt to pump nearly $26 million into the federal budget to manufacture the weapon in 2005.

Click here (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Aug/23/mn/mn01a.html) for the rest of the story.

Jamorris
08-25-2004, 01:10 AM
The improvement in caliber is a worthy idea. The 5.56 NATO is a poodlle-shooter. I would hope they would be at least retrofit the M-16 and M-4 to the caliber. I am not fond of plastic rifles and the prices are surely outrageous, but we are stuck with them.

The new Land Warrior system sure sounds scary. A new standard service caliber mated to the new 20mm special purpose area round is an awesome idea. If it works, I'd be prone to skip the HK design altogether and use the present rifle in an updated caliber to fill in the RE legions.

Jerry

animal
08-25-2004, 01:22 AM
I'm gonna agree with JAMorris on this one. It's unfortunate that our government manages our money so poorly. But, when your out there in a battle, your rifle is the only thing that is gonna bring you home alive. I don't like the small caliber of the m-16, but I do like that it can take a lot of abuse and still fire, and it field strips easy... I hope the new weapon is an actual improvement, rather that political bullshit.I hope the soldiers out there with their lives on the line, get the very best equipment in the world.

Wide
08-25-2004, 01:30 AM
I am by no means a gun expert.

They need to have a gun that will get the job done PERIOD..

Jamorris
08-25-2004, 01:43 AM
I am by no means a gun expert.


There are no TRUE experts. There are those who think they are expert and those that know what worked for them and what did not work. I rely on what people who were there said worked for them, , *IF* I trust the source..

If it goes bang everytime and does what you need it to do, when it goes bang, that is good enough.

Jerry

animal
08-25-2004, 01:54 AM
I am by no means a gun expert.

They need to have a gun that will get the job done PERIOD..

You Go Wide!!!!.... We need the big guns, and permission to fire.. Permission is not always easy when it comes to that kind of firepower.........
I do have a video of an Apache lighting up some Egyptan assholes with. There was nothing left, but fertalizer.

whodatt
08-25-2004, 03:38 AM
I agree that all of our forces need the very best that they can be supplied with. The problem is that most of the time for mass appropritations the low bidder wins. The basic M-16 is not a bad weapon, and the later varients are much better platforms, but if this weapon can do all the things it claims it can then it might really be a giant leap ahead.

At least one problem with going to a larger caliber round or different stock (i.e. wood) is weight. My friends that have returned from Iraq or Afganistan have all mentioned the problems they had with the heat. A heavier weapon would present additional problems, especially in a harsh environment.

It is my understanding that the primary caliber will be 5.56x45 (which is still a .223 bullet). For human targets that round can be effective at fairly long ranges, and it's smaller size allows more of it to be carried. Other calibers or types of rifles can be much better at long ranges, but then there are specific weapons for that purpose, including one particular varient of the XM8.

The XM8 http://www.damodred.net/e2_backup.php?node=42 looks to be an impressive successor to the M-16 and it's varients, and the commonality it would share in all it's forms could only be bennificial to the troops carrying them.

Sorry to get off on a rant, just a topic that I am partial to on several levels, not the least of which is the government getting away from buying based on who made the lowest bid.

Jamorris
08-25-2004, 11:41 AM
I am by no means a gun expert.


There are no TRUE experts. There are those who think they are expert and those that know what worked for them and what did not work. I rely on what people who were there said worked for them, , *IF* I trust the source..

If it goes bang everytime and does what you need it to do, when it goes bang, that is good enough.

Jerry

Upon reading this, I think I may be misunderstood. When I say there are no true experts, I was inferring "godlike" infallibilty. With the things I know best, I have been wrong. If feathers were ruffled, I apologise.

Jerry

Jamorris
08-25-2004, 12:14 PM
whodatt, It seems the 5.56 may not be the standard in the future. There is a 6.9 mm replacement candidate.

I think that the weight issue might be better resolved tactrically, through the use of proven use of advanced recon and designation of targets for heavier weaponry. Better Intel is a far more important area for concentration in improvement.

Let's just hope we can keep on pulling rabbits out of our hat! I hear there are some impressive follow-ups in the chute.

Jerry

whodatt
08-26-2004, 02:15 AM
Jamorris, I have not heard of the 6.9 round. That would make it 0.2716535 or .270 caliber. Maybe they are talking of the relatively new Winchester .270 magunm. Good round. The original 270 Winchester is based on the .30-06 case necked down to accept a .277-inch bullet. This is a pretty good sized round. The 270 magnum is nothing more than the .300 WSM case necked down to the proper caliber, .277.

This would be a great alternative, but I have not seen anyone who has attempted this application in a military weapon. I would be interested in hearing more though if you can point me in the right direction.

I think you have a great idea of resolving the weight issue tacitcally, and as technology increases this will undoubtedly improve. That said, regardless of the technology used you still must put a person on sight to occupy said location. Just a basic military principle. As long as that is the case, weight carried by an individual combatant will be an issue.

I remember that the Marine Corps Development and Education Center (MCDEC) in Quantico, and the Army's Aberdeen proving grounds have both worked on a caseless round. That would solve a lot of issues, but so far no viable solution has been found.

I am no expert in firearms, but it is a subject that I enjoy. Not sure if it's because I like to shoot or if I'm just a number crunching gear head geek! :lol:

Jamorris
08-26-2004, 12:10 PM
whodatt, I don't know if I typo'd, or misremebered, but the round is a 6.8 mm and would be applicable in the M-16 package. It is very similar to the 6.5 Grendel. I am looking for links on the topic. Here is a starter http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=383

If you look closer, you'll see I addressed the occupation boots, this must be a massive and irresistable ground force immediatley on the heals of the "New Wave Rolling Barrage" The new recon and designation special forces would not be committed to offensive ground maneuvers, but spotting and fixing with new tech weaponry, for example airpower. and rapid armor columns of lighter and smaller number. Similar to the Iraqi invasion last done. We pulled our punch on that one. A fully committed "Shock & Awe" designed to totally destroy he enemys ability and will to fight is needed and I believe should have been used, if the Iraqi operation was truely needed.

If an Iranian, or North Korean action becomes needed, I wonder if we have the follow on forces and the will to carry it off. China is also a must consider issue., in regards to Korea. My own personal view is, China is our primary worry overall. They fully intend to engage us sooner, or later.

I am not privy to new tech weapons developed in black areas. But, by looking at past results and looking at the "DreamWeavers" like Jerry Pournell, there are likely some major surprises in the loop. Battlefield Networking is one area we have an edge in, at present. If that is being furthered to our advantage, so much the better. Advanced Lasers and super-kinetic weapons would chage the charector of the battlefield. One way, or the other. Hopefully we could deploy first.

Jerry

speedman
08-26-2004, 01:17 PM
I have to agree with Jerry - China is a huge long term threat. North Korea and Iran will eventually fade away, but China is a completely different matter. The western world will obviously never match them in sheer numbers of troops, which makes Jerry's comments right on the money. When thee day comes that China challenges the rest of the world we better hope we have more than just a slight edge in technology on our side.

whodatt
08-26-2004, 04:47 PM
Jerry, don't quite know how we got to this point in the discussion. The fact is I agree with everything you are saying about possible future conflicts and our need for superior technology. The only point I was trying to make is that regardless of the technology used to get there, a ground combatant still needs to occupy a spot on a map. For that individual to not only get there, but to stay and function effectively, weight can be a crucial issue.

After reading the links that you provided, it looks like the 6.8mm round may in fact be balistically superior to the 5.56. Where the 6.8 round exceeds it's competition is out past approximately 300 - 350 yards. Inside of that range the 5.56 does have some benifits. Given everything that needs to be taken into consideration, the 6.8 mm round may in fact be a better round.

My only question is how many rounds can one individual carry on his person and still be able to fight effectively for the longest period of time. I did not find any specifics to the round size other than what case it is based on. Now please don't take this wrong, I'm only trying to compare apples to apples, but is there a significant size/weight difference between not only the two rounds, but the weapons modifications needed to use them? The article did say that a different barrel and some other mods were necessary to switch to the 6.8 round. If they are significant enough to increase the weight of the rifle and decrease the number of rounds one can carry then the advantages of said round may be negated.

I think the XM8 addresses most of these questions with its multiple use applications. Both close in fighting and its ability to "reach out and touch someone". One of the biggest advantages, other than its ability to change itself, is the reduced weight. I look forward to seeing it someday.

Okay, so where are we in this discussion again? :D

Jamorris
08-26-2004, 08:25 PM
whodatt, we are, IMO, saying much the same thing on ground troops. The initial presentation is currently the "ghostly" SF teams that survey and target. My question is do we have the troop resources, or the will to go in and occupy after the assault by rapid mobile forces.

The political soft glove we adopted in Iraq is counter productive, in my view.. For the whole thing to work, we need to go in, sanitize and neutralize. Then either get out of, or rule the scorched area with an iron will. I think in and out is the best method. Conquering territories and holding them doesn't seem to be our best talent.

The preservation of population is good. The lack of inciting the population to co-operate is our downfall. From the first instances of armed uprising, absolute resolution should be immediate and undeniable. This is why I don't think we should have been playing world cop all these past years. It is a dirty business. The needed military force and will isn't really in the true American charector.


Now, back to the 6.8 mm. There is obviously a cost on the rounds per pound issue. With our current tactical methods, is the cost acceptable. With stressing the regimental assault forces and their transport vehicles,
I think it is.

Jerry




Jerry

burdog
08-26-2004, 09:59 PM
I have used the M-14 and the M-16 in Vietnam. The M-14 I carried was able to be fired on full auto. From my experience, the XM8 would be useless on full auto firing anything much bigger than a 5.56 round.
An M-14 weighs twice as much (11 lbs. with full clip) as the XM8 and and fires the 7.62. You might be able to get one or two rounds on target in full auto before your shooting holes in the sky with the M-14.
I know nothing about the recoil system on the XM8 but it would have to be mighty impressive to hold it on target shooting anything much bigger than a 5.56.

Burdog

Jamorris
08-27-2004, 01:14 AM
burdog, the 6.8 can in no way be compared to the 7.65 NATO, The cartridge would be better looked at as a souped up 5.56.NATO. The 7.62 NATO is just an updated 30-06 and is, as you said, too powerful for a full automatic M-14 type rifle. Now, the AR-10. is a long maybe. It has many of the design features of the M-16

I am not one of the"'spray & pray crowd". I believe in precision shooting. Make one shot do the job. Then hopefully you won't need all that ammo, which the possession of cause can actually cause undisciplined soldiers to waste so much of by spraying hopefully. Full Auto is the job of the SAW and heavier weapons.

I think highly of the M-14 in cool, highly trained hands. 120 rounds of 7.62 is a lot of very useful long range firepower. It is proving itself all over again today in Iraq. If I had the prospect of engaing a number of enemy at over 200 meters, the 7.62 is what I would desire. From 200 out, the 5.56 is losing ground fast, in comparison..

Jerry

junior
08-27-2004, 01:29 AM
cool discussion...thought i'd chip in my $0.02....

i have a mini-14 ranch model that i use for goat hunting. used to use it for pig, but a .223 (5.56) didn't seem to slow them 180 pound mountain pigs down much. besides the lack of stopping power, didn't take much for that round to be lead astray. anything gustier than a bluebird fart seemed to cause a measureble movement in the trajectory on shots over 150-200 yards. fun gun for small game hunting, but that round would not seem to practical in anything other than rapid-fire close quarters miltary use.

j

thorsblood
08-27-2004, 02:38 AM
I have had the opportunity to qualify with both the M-14 and M-16, most recently last year on Mt. Fugi. I personally am not a big fan of the M-16 or the 223 round. I love the M-14 which I got alot more accurate with. I like the fact you can interchange rounds with the M-60, which, if I want to shoot more than one round in a burst is definitely what I would want. Neither the M-14 or M-60 are made for slight men. You gotta be able to handle them. We use H&K assault rifle in the Dept. I like them less than the M-16. I use a Remington bolt action 30'06 deer hunting. It is extremely effective. I have killed alot of deer with my Grandads 1940 purchased 30'30 winchester lever action too. But if you want stealthy and deadly..... I have a Matthews Legacy Compound bow with a red dot scope, that I have killed 4 nice bucks with in the past 3 years. Woulda been 6 but I had to take a year off for Uncle Sam. Thats at less than 40 yards. I have never been all that interested in the ins and outs of the technical stuff, but I know what I like to shoot and what works for me, like others have pointed out. At work, in buildings or even out, I never feel quite so comfortable as when I have a Remington 870 12 gauge. Hard to go wrong with one of them.

whodatt
08-27-2004, 04:36 AM
Having shot the M-14 in matches while in the Marines, and the M-16 extensively there and while with the MSP, I agree that the .308 round is much better at long range situations, and certainly has the advantage of interchagablility with the M-60. But having carried both over some distances, unless I was with a mechanized unit I would prefer to carry somthing that allows me to be more mobile. A moving target is harder to hit than a stationary one. That is, all things being equal and not shooting at Juniors humongus pigs. :P

In the right situation, a more potent cartridge is certainly a more preferable option, but when the situation dictates that I be on the move under my own power (with the standard issue, "Mark-one, Mod-zero boot" :o ) and particularly in an urban environment, a large caliber round can be unnecessary. The MSP has purchased M-16's to replace the ones they stupidly got rid of years ago due to political pressure, but they have also conducted studies that show a rifle that shoots the same caliber as the currently carried handgun (.40) may be a better option.

Again, I do not claim to be an expert, but in my experience and in the training I have received it has been stressed to me that proper bullet placement on your target can be the crucial factor when engaging targets that can hurt you. Again, Juniors pigs aside. :D

And sorry, Jerry, but I'm not familier with the "spray and pray crowd" to which you refer. As a former Marine, I assume you are talking about Army personnelle. :lol:

junior
08-27-2004, 10:32 AM
Again, Juniors pigs aside.:

funny you should mention a .40sw rifle....

as the .223 is only a nuisance to a large feral piggy, my father-in-law and his hunting partners have switched to the ruger deerfield carbine which uses the .44 magnum pistol cartridge.

a step up in the stopping power department i'd say....


btw, most of the pigs run on average about 120-140 pounds. the occaisional monster (some over 200- true enough) comes down off the mountain. as the primary means of hunting here is dog and knife, the gun is usually only a backup...

screw it. i only hunt birds now anyway. easy to carry back to the truck, and no sharp teeth......lol

j

Jamorris
08-27-2004, 11:52 AM
The MSP has purchased M-16's to replace the ones they stupidly got rid of years ago due to political pressure, but they have also conducted studies that show a rifle that shoots the same caliber as the currently carried handgun (.40) may be a better option.

And sorry, Jerry, but I'm not familier with the "spray and pray crowd" to which you refer. As a former Marine, I assume you are talking about Army personnelle. :lol:

It has been shown recently that the pistol caliber carbines to have a darkside. One that appears to be more, or less absent with the M-16 using milspec FMJ. The M-193 will most ly shatter at the cannelure inside a body, which precludes an exit wound. This is found to be true out to 200 meters. Unless you're using a pre-fragmented round, the carbines are excessively penetrative. Now, for hunting I would find the carbine the better round. For urban policework, I would choose the M-193 in an AR, not neccessarily an M-16. It is better to be perceived to be overly aggresive with your ammo, than to risk innocent bystanders with a through and through shot.

Well, My most recent example of "Spray & Pray" comes from televised news video of Palistinain "milita" shooting AKs over a wall, all the while their entire bodies were below the wall. They didn't even try to sight. But, I saw the same stuff in news footage during the Vietnam thing, as a kid. If they had the Land Warrior System, this would still be effective, but as it is, I find it somewhat harrowingly comic. I have Marines in the Family, although Navy predominates, I know of the Marine rifleman tradition and "This is my rifle, this is my gun".

Jerry