7.62mm Rifle to REPLACE M4 Carbine

[natdscott]

Not exactly. If the here you are referring to is INGO much of the discussion seems to be about .30 cal in a large case(ie 7.62x51) vs. the 5.56. If the here is the military they, or at least most of the example cartridges being referenced are also of the 7.62x51 size. Both INGO and the military seems to be fixated on relatively heavy for caliber bullets.

Hmm. Well I guess you kinda pointed it out, but you're right, I was referring to the larger discussion.

By my way of thinking, anything in the range between Grendel and 6.5 Lapua is a pretty small casing. I think I said it earlier, but if not, then my opinion is that a 6.5mm 123 is about ideal. Funny I said that, because per the linked articles here, the AMU is apparently already going the same place. Seeing as we study the same game, and shoot it together, I'm never really surprised to hear that somebody else 'already did that'. I'm always late to the party.

But if the rifle is supposed to still be used to kick doors, a rifle with the recoil level of a .308 M14 is just about a non-option at this point (I'd think), even thought the .308 is only a low-to-medium capacity cartridge in it's own right.

Not until you get to the UM .30's and then into heavy 8mm and 35's do you get truly into "medium rifle" rounds. But that's mostly lost on the American mind at this point, so I might as well leave that to pedantic types. Wait a minute...

-Nate

 

[TheDude]

US Army Facilitates Purchase Of M80A1 Ammo For Interim Service Combat Rifle Hopefuls - Soldier Systems Daily


Never say never I guess.

 

[two70]

Hmm. Well I guess you kinda pointed it out, but you're right, I was referring to the larger discussion.

By my way of thinking, anything in the range between Grendel and 6.5 Lapua is a pretty small casing. I think I said it earlier, but if not, then my opinion is that a 6.5mm 123 is about ideal. Funny I said that, because per the linked articles here, the AMU is apparently already going the same place. Seeing as we study the same game, and shoot it together, I'm never really surprised to hear that somebody else 'already did that'. I'm always late to the party.

But if the rifle is supposed to still be used to kick doors, a rifle with the recoil level of a .308 M14 is just about a non-option at this point (I'd think), even thought the .308 is only a low-to-medium capacity cartridge in it's own right.

Not until you get to the UM .30's and then into heavy 8mm and 35's do you get truly into "medium rifle" rounds. But that's mostly lost on the American mind at this point, so I might as well leave that to pedantic types. Wait a minute...

-Nate

I mostly agree. I think something with a case size between the Grendel and Lapua makes a lot of sense. Unless the platform itself is changed then the case length is necessarily limited by the magazine length and any substantial increase in case diameter quickly reduces magazine capacity. Given typical combat range(300 yards and under) where the benefits of 6.5's won't have had the chance to really show themselves yet, I would lean more toward a .277 or 7mm diameter which would allow you to use a similar weight bullet at somewhat higher velocity. The larger bullet diameter at higher velocity would be more effective at short range while still providing more performance out to the far end of typical combat range.

It was kind of weird for me to previously type that a 7.62x51 was a large case/cartridge when I primarily think of cartridges in hunting terms where medium doesn't really begin until about .338 Win and goes up through the various .416s. However, for military purposes, the size range is much more compact with the .30-06 being gigantic and the 7.62x51 being on the large end for general issue.

 

[Hohn]

While these discussions on what cartridge the military should use are interesting, the bottom line is that one cartridge that meets all needs well simply doesn't exist because many of those needs are conflicting. A cartridge large and powerful enough to perform well at long range is going to incur a penalty in increased weight(of both rifle and ammo), reduced ammo load, and increased recoil that reduces it's effectiveness at short range where most combat occurs. IMO, it is a bass ackwards strategy to attempt to equip every soldier to handle less common long range combat situations(that is what DMRs, artillery, and air power are for) to the detriment of the more common short range combat. Trade offs need to be made to balance these conflicting needs instead of jumping from one extreme to the other based on different situations. To that end, a relatively small cased cartridge of some caliber from .243 to .277 with a middle weight (for caliber) bullet would probably do that best.

Engrave this in stone tablets and FedEx to DoD. They apparently have forgotten some basic common sense.

You simply don't give something up you need 100% of the time (lighter weight, more capacity) to gain something you might need 10% of the time.

If anything, the 7.62 is too close to 5.56 to justify itself. The bullets are too low in BC relative to the weight. It's hard to justify the extra weight and reduced capacity for just another couple hundred meters.


DMR rifles are supposed to be like insurance. You don't need it often, but when you do, there is simply nothing else that substitutes. A heavy 140gr 6.5 (say creedmoor) is perfect for DMR work to 1200 or so. You don't save much weight over a 7.62, but at least you have a longer range that justifies that weight more effectively.

Then you save the 30 cals for really long range weapons with 230gr pills, ala 300 Norma. These are 2000m capable platforms.

After that, that's what close air support is for. Designate and wait for the AGM-65. Or call in artillery hits.

 

[avboiler11]

If anything, the 7.62 is too close to 5.56 to justify itself. The bullets are too low in BC relative to the weight. It's hard to justify the extra weight and reduced capacity for just another couple hundred meters.

The best example of this is to look at the 30cal 175gr Matchking at 2640fps (24" Mk316 velocity), and compare it to a 7mm 175gr Matchking at the same velocity which is easily achievable from a 24" 7mm-08.

For the same ammo weight and recoil, the 7mm has WAY more arse downrange than the 7.62 does...

 

[Cerberus]

I think many of you are missing the point. This is a contract for up to 50,000 rifles. The M4 is not going to be replaced as of now, but a lighter 7.62 semi auto that can punch out to 800-1k can be useful, and yes the 7.62 can easily do that for a decent marksman, even with M80. While there may be more efficient cartridges out there, and at some point one may be adopted when we aren't on a two way range, the military is not going to add even more logistics problems to an already complicated system by adding yet another round. This test sounds like a plan to replace the EBR as duel use DMR.

 

[halfmileharry]

Like my old Gunny always told me... "STFU and use what you got 'til you're issued somethin' better"

 

[Hohn]

The best example of this is to look at the 30cal 175gr Matchking at 2640fps (24" Mk316 velocity), and compare it to a 7mm 175gr Matchking at the same velocity which is easily achievable from a 24" 7mm-08.

For the same ammo weight and recoil, the 7mm has WAY more arse downrange than the 7.62 does...

Exactly. It doesn't take a huge increase in caliber to gain a huge increase in BC *IF* you are focusing on projectiles optimized for BC.
Even a jump up to 6mm or 6.5mm would be a substantial increase in capability if using high BC bullets.

And at the 7mm size, you get something like the newer Berger 195 EOL projectiles that are mind-boggling.

I didn't realize you could stuff a 175smk into 7-08, good to know.

 

[natdscott]

I didn't realize you could stuff a 175smk into 7-08, good to know.

Kinda like 90's in a .223. It can be done, but it may not be a good idea.

-Nate

 

[avboiler11]

Kinda like 90's in a .223. It can be done, but it may not be a good idea.

Why do you think it "may not be a good idea"?

It'd eat too much case capacity at BDL length, but from an AICS-pattern magazine?

And yeah, I run 90gr VLDs @ 2.49" in 22" 1:7 AI mag-fed 223AI, it does just fine

 

[natdscott]

Just not much boiler room. Granted though, it's not as bad as the ultra-heavies.

But if you're talking about 90's in a Two-Two-Three...sure. It IS done. It's still a crappy idea.

-Nate

 

[Kirk Freeman]

As I suspected, complete nonsense.

Maybe Big Army focuses on the ammo and forget about penetrating BMPs or Soviet helmets a la 1981?

Gosh darn this gun nut crap can wear you down.

BREAKING: Army 7.62mm Rifle Program CANCELLED - ICSR is No More - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog