7.62mm Rifle to REPLACE M4 Carbine

[natdscott]

I'm tickled pink the modern ammo is more practical. By the same thinking I have zero issues if OUR military can utilize better weapons than the M16/M4. IF it's better and does it's job better than why would any of us be against a better military issue weapon?

I don't think anybody would be, but I really am not sure the .308 is that round.

Damn, I mean how much data do you want to ignore?!

Prior to WWII, we ALMOST had a .264 or .270 service cartrdige. If the dead were honest, it was probably SOLELY due to ego v. the Brits that we stuck it out with the .30-03, then .30-06.

If that had not been set as the precedent for millions of rounds worth of bullets, and metric sh@#-tons of cleaning and sundry equipment, we likely would never have had the T65 --> 7.62x51 NATO...

...and we aren't having this stupid discussion when the .260-class rounds are right there for the taking (or any other similar round that outperforms .308 in the wind, is easier to carry volume of, has 1/2 or 2/3 the recoil in automatic fire, costs less per round, and hits with nearly all the force of .308 anyway...)


-Nate

 

[flatlander]

I would imagine shot placement matters more than caliber in almost every instance, sometimes you might have to put 2 or 3 rounds in a good spot depending. 5.56 is lighter than 7.62, more rounds on person, yikes I sound like a post Korean war sales brochure! Lol

Ding ding ding.
If you've never had to tote all the gear a modern Grunt carries, please STFU.
If you have "read" BS about carrying SKS vs M4 and that's your "experience" please STFU
Grunts have to carry a WHOLE bunch of gear. Why in the hell would you add to it? Most people that scream for "longer range" don't realize the typical ranges todays wars are fought on. A CHOSEN few DM is a fine idea but to replace all the M4s with 7.62 whatevers is stupid. Most troops, let alone chairborne commandos, can't hit at the distances people think we need a new weapon for. Todays doctrine is based on volume of fire, fire and manuever and calling in fire missions.
I carried everything from a rattling 1911 pistol thru Med MG and even did time with TOWs in over 24 years of .mil and contracting and the BIGGEST factor in a gunfight are HITS. The bad guys who got killed by M4's never said that they were happy it was the paltry 5.56.
Ask the ****ing guy in the arena what he needs and I bet he doesn't say more weight and less rounds.

Bob

 

[halfmileharry]

I don't think anybody would be, but I really am not sure the .308 is that round.

Damn, I mean how much data do you want to ignore?!

Prior to WWII, we ALMOST had a .264 or .270 service cartrdige. If the dead were honest, it was probably SOLELY due to ego v. the Brits that we stuck it out with the .30-03, then .30-06.

If that had not been set as the precedent for millions of rounds worth of bullets, and metric sh@#-tons of cleaning and sundry equipment, we likely would never have had the T65 --> 7.62x51 NATO...

...and we aren't having this stupid discussion when the .260-class rounds are right there for the taking (or any other similar round that outperforms .308 in the wind, is easier to carry volume of, has 1/2 or 2/3 the recoil in automatic fire, costs less per round, and hits with nearly all the force of .308 anyway...)


-Nate

The .308 had it's turn as did a lot of prior cartridges and calibers. I'm NOT arguing FOR another 762.
I'd like to see a new military caliber that's light and performs better than what we've been running.
Having used BOTH the 556 and 7.62x51 I'll take the 762 all day long over the 556.
I didn't like humping the M14 and ammo but I didn't like carrying the M16 into the doo doo even more.
I didn't want to hump the M60 either

 

[Leo]

Replace 5.56? Ain't happening for a long time.

I would like to think the same thing. That is what we said about the 7.62 NATO and the M-14. All of the sudden, they were coming out to combat zones and taking away the M-14's and replacing them with M-16's. To make matters worse, they were the ones that didn't work. Things change, if some powerful bureacrat in the DOD gets the nod, 16's will be shredded post haste.

Another complication is all the 5.56 rifles we supply other countries.

 

[Excalibur]

Is it safe to assume they aren't looking into a new caliber because of the logistics of ammo already in stock?

 

[avboiler11]

A high school buddy of mine was a platoon LT in the 10th Mountain Division. During his one year vacation in Afghanistan, he carried a M4. I asked him if he ever felt under-gunned and he said no; our ammunition and optics and most importantly rifleman made the 5.56 more effective even at those ranges than the 7.62x39 and x54R that were firing at him and at no point did he ever feel the need for his platoon to have more than one 7.62-equipped DMR per squad. The 5.56 did lack energy on target at extended ranges, but a better weapon provided more hits and that is what takes people out of a fight.

Same guy told me his preferred weapon in a fight was his radio, as nothing was better than an A-10 run but a B-52 dropping a whole slew of JDAMs was really close.

My vote is 6.5 Creedmoor to take advantage of its better ballistics...but we could make the Euros happy by supporting 6.5x47 Lapua as a new NATO standard...

 

[avboiler11]

Also, the RFP is for 50,000 units - that ain't gonna touch actually replacing the M4 for Big Green.

 

[sheepdog697]

I liked the idea of them making a switch to a 6 or 6.5mm...

 

[LarryC]

I don't entirely disagree with your logic, but your 100 yard limit is a bit unrealistic. That, or naive to the more modern types of ammo available.

I grant you, a .22 is still a .22, but if you had a better chance to observe the effects of heavy load .223 at 300 yards, or even further, your opinion of the round might be changed for the better.

Is it ever going to be a medium-weight medium-capacity contender to something like a 6.5-08, .308, etc.? No.

But neither is your quoted 7.62x39. Not even a semblance of the same thing.

-Nate

You may be right as far as heavier bullets. However the only cartridges I have purchased are Lake City military rounds in 55 and 62 Gr. In fact these are the only weight cartridges I have found at reasonable cost in bulk. I do realize the Ar is accurate and capable of wounding up to 3 ~ 4 hundred yards, but at those ranges they don't penetrate very heavy barriers at all. That is why the troops were carrying AK's in the Hummers along with the Ar's, the enemy learned of the shortfalls of the Ar cartridges and ambushed our troops from a distance where the AK was lethal and the Ar wouldn't harm them. In the documentary I watched the General in command of the troops remarked that he knew it was against regulations for our men to carry the AK, but he certainly was not going to stop them. I can't disagree that the
7.62 X 39 is also a fairly poor round and I doubt I would carry it long. I would probably go to a Garand or my LR .308 or other high power military rifles - for real long range I would use my Armalite 50BMG (but I sure wouldn't want to carry it too far)!

I used to be a quite accurate rifleman, but never entered into competition, (yeah I noticed your sig line) however I am now 76 and not near as accurate as I once was. I now have scopes on most of my rifles and some handguns to help. Still believe I can defend as required.

 

[Hohn]

I collect and shoot firearms, have a couple of Ar's in 5.56 and an LR-308. I also have Garand's and a M1 carbine, along with many other foreign WW2 battle rifles like the AK, SK, Mosin's, SVD-40, Mauser's, Enfield's etc.

If a SHTF situation occurred, one of the LAST firearms I would depend on is the AR in 5.56. To my thinking it is a very ineffective round at ranges past 100 yards, subject to large drifts in wind, very poor barrier penetration and poor wound characteristics.
.

Perhaps true of XM193, M855 and M855a1, but almost certainly NOT true of MK262 or Mk318 SOST. Someone loaded up with MK262 has a VERY capable round (in terms of terminal performance) out to well past 400 meters. It is very good in the wind for a .223 round and has rather dramatic terminal performance on soft targets.

 

[Hohn]

Ding ding ding.
If you've never had to tote all the gear a modern Grunt carries, please STFU.
If you have "read" BS about carrying SKS vs M4 and that's your "experience" please STFU
Grunts have to carry a WHOLE bunch of gear. Why in the hell would you add to it? Most people that scream for "longer range" don't realize the typical ranges todays wars are fought on. A CHOSEN few DM is a fine idea but to replace all the M4s with 7.62 whatevers is stupid. Most troops, let alone chairborne commandos, can't hit at the distances people think we need a new weapon for. Todays doctrine is based on volume of fire, fire and manuever and calling in fire missions.
I carried everything from a rattling 1911 pistol thru Med MG and even did time with TOWs in over 24 years of .mil and contracting and the BIGGEST factor in a gunfight are HITS. The bad guys who got killed by M4's never said that they were happy it was the paltry 5.56.
Ask the ****ing guy in the arena what he needs and I bet he doesn't say more weight and less rounds.

Bob

This X1000.

The complaints about 5.56 are most the green tips, which don't do well in soft targets under some conditions of yaw and range. Complaints about MK262 largely don't exist, other than there aren't enough of those rounds in country and everyone wants them.

Those advocating for 7.62 are forgetting the reason it was abandoned to begin with-- a typical soldier cannot control the weapon on full auto. You cannot aim the automatic fire with a 7.62 unless it is a VERY heavy gun-- much heavier than an M14. Personally, I can't imaging humping something even heavier than that beast.



I've often wondered if they could make a larger caliber work on full auto if they dropped the cyclic rate down. I personally think a 6mm like a 6CM or .243 setup for heavy bullets (105gr) at about 2800 fps would be formidable at a cyclic rate of perhaps 300 rounds/min. And a modern high-BC round in 6mm at those speeds is a 800m+ cartridge all day long.

Save the SAW-like ammo consumption for installed weapons or those with a base. Anything designed to be fired from the should needs a lower cyclic rate in fun mode.

 

[Trigger Time]

Not gonna happen

 

[natdscott]

If you've never had to tote all the gear a modern Grunt carries, please STFU.

Hey, if you served, then I thank you for that in the same sentence as I say you have earned the right by ruck to have that chip on your shoulder.

But I'll follow that with the point that I doubt you know every angle of what you seem to be saying you do. Very few are in that boat, and those who are, are not on INGO talking about it.

I used to be a quite accurate rifleman, but never entered into competition, (yeah I noticed your sig line) however I am now 76 and not near as accurate as I once was. I now have scopes on most of my rifles and some handguns to help. Still believe I can defend as required.

I'll take that as a compliment, Larry. Thank you. I bust my ass trying to get better from a lot of angles. Sometimes it works out, and some times it doesn't, but that's life.

Scopes or not, I won't be trying to stand in front of you, and I have plenty of scoped...'items'.

Ever try to shoulder that AR50 in offhand? Good lord. I'd shoot it that way, but the only time I ever held one up, it was a HEAVY sonofagun.

As far as heavy 5.56 rounds, Hohn has said about anything I'd have. The Mk262 Mod 1 round--as developed from Highpower shooters everywhere since...forever ago--is one mean SOB. Basically, it's what we would all like to do with the 77 SMK match loads we all shoot, IF we didn't care about the brass. Of course, with fire-and-leave military ammo, that is not a concern as long as it won't blow sh@#$ into pieces at 150+ degrees.

2,750 fps from an 18" barrel is no joke, and that's the spec. The "cannelure" on the SMK for those rounds probably does jack, but I've only shot maybe 150 of those compared to thousands and thousands of the standard 77, so I can't say. It looks good, anyway.

This isn't a terrible overview:

The Best 5.56 Load: The Black Hills MK 262 Mod 1 - Shooting Times

I personally think a 6mm like a 6CM or .243 setup for heavy bullets (105gr) at about 2800 fps would be formidable at a cyclic rate of perhaps 300 rounds/min. And a modern high-BC round in 6mm at those speeds is a 800m+ cartridge all day long.

Take a look at the 6mm AR. As long as it could be proven to feed reliably in automatic fire, 100 grainers at 2,800 sound pretty good.

I still thing a 120-class 6.5 bullet at the same speed is maybe a better solution, but that round does have pretty good numbers for what it is.

-Nate

 

[flatlander]

It's the people who don't suffer the damages from the "great ideas" that "think" they are so ****ing smart.

Bob

 

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

The U.S. government made the same mistake earlier. When they mass supplied the army with 30 carbine during the Korean police action. The North laughed when they 30 did not penetrate their heavy winter coats.
Why because they were cheaper to produce.
The U.S. replaced the M-14 with the M-16 because they were cheaper to produce. They did not care that the 5.56 bounced off every blade of grass.
Again there are attempts to bring the M-14 variant back in service.
Only the 50 cal beat the 30-06 for U.S. knock down and penetrating power.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Excalibur]

The U.S. government made the same mistake earlier. When they mass supplied the army with 30 carbine during the Korean police action. The North laughed when they 30 did not penetrate their heavy winter coats.
Why because they were cheaper to produce.
The U.S. replaced the M-14 with the M-16 because they were cheaper to produce. They did not care that the 5.56 bounced off every blade of grass.
Again there are attempts to bring the M-14 variant back in service.
Only the 50 cal beat the 30-06 for U.S. knock down and penetrating power.

That's a bit of a broad stroke when it comes to comparing different weapon systems.

The problem during the Korean War is neither would a weapon like M14 or even the M16 would stopped millions of poorly trained dumb soldiers forced to charge down a hill in waves. The majority of causalities taken down from the Chinese were from artillery strikes and air strikes. Remember, against the same kind of half ass trained North Korean soldiers that broke through the line and almost took over the entire peninsula, Allied forces pushed them all the way passed the 49th parallel almost all the way to the border of China with the very same dated WWII era weapons and tactics. The M1 Garand has a much more powerful cartridge than a .308, and even then an 8 round rifle could not stop the Chinese onslaught. Adding 12 more rounds in an M14 would not have stopped them. Overwhelming disregard for friendly causalities is why the Chinese technically won.

Sure the .30 caliber carbine is cheap but it the concept of it does work with the evolving times, but is inappropriate as a front line weapon only because of the caliber. Had it been designed with a slightly, but not to bigger of a round, it'd be awesome. During WWII, it was an effective short, handy rifle that you can lug for miles without getting fatigue, and compact for tight spaces and with the highest capacity magazine of all the service weapon and with post WWII with it being issued with 30 round mags, it was volume of fire that really wins the day. The problem is that the US military had yet to evolve their tactics beyond WWII.

The M16 from it's beginning being "cheaper" doesn't mean it's made of crap. It's cheaper than the M14 because it's not made of wood and milled steel, meaning less material and lighter stuff that actually makes it just as strong. There were reports of the wooden stocks suffering in the jungles of Vietnam because of the materials they were made of.

Saying the 5.56 "bounces off every blade of grass" is a bit of an exaggeration. It's more of the limits of US military imposes on what kind of ammo the boots on the ground can use and the bureaucracy of DOD made the whole situation a mess.



The same concept can be argue with pistol calibers. Why did we change from the venerable .45 to what many still call the puny 9mm? Should we fall back to the .45? Maybe. It is a heavier round with more punch?

 

[oldpink]

M-14 for the win!
Hey, I can dream.

 

[Cerberus]

Hey, if you served, then I thank you for that in the same sentence as I say you have earned the right by ruck to have that chip on your shoulder.

But I'll follow that with the point that I doubt you know every angle of what you seem to be saying you do. Very few are in that boat, and those who are, are not on INGO talking about it.

-Nate

I am also one of those "in that boat" and Flatlander is spot on.

 

[stephen87]

Referring to?
My memory was a bit vague on Mozambique and I had to research via Google.
I'm still not getting the correlation.

Mozambique drill

Two to the chest, one to the head.

At least, I'd imagine that's that nat is alluding to.