The .30 caliber military general issue rifle debate with a twist

If you load .308 right you get 7.62x39 ballistics.

Which works well as a 'reduced power load' but kinda defeats the purpose of 7.62 NATO.

TANSTAAFL.

BSW

You still run into the issue of ammo capacity/weight. A .308/7.62x51 is still the same size, no mater what you load it at. You lose a bit of weight from the powder, but no size, and not enough weight to off set.

Second, You also add confusion of 2 rounds that in magazine would likely look very similar. Instead of just yanking a mag and sticking it in, youd have to check to make sure you had the right mag, or risk coming up short on a long shot or shooting holes in the roof on full auto.

Third, I havent seen any gas systems that will consistently run TRUE reduced recoil loads on one hand and then just as quickly switch to full power loads. As far as i know the only option to correct this would to be severly over gassed at full power, or risk short stroking with light loads. With a bolt, or other manual it wouldnt matter. Still I dont think your average grunt is going to be happy if you hand him a 7600 and ask for cover fire.
Just my thoughts.

The reduced & full power loads will not shoot to the same sight settings either, so much more then a mag change is necessary to switch back and forth.

In all, it would turn the mass confusion of combat & combat resupply into a Chinese Fire Drill Cluster Duck!

rc

What about the squad automatic weapon gunners? M249s aren't feathery but I'd hate to have to haul a M240B around along with 500+ rounds of ammo.

I rarely see any mention of the wide variety of bullets and loadings available to reloaders for the .308 Winchester.

Anyone who reloads knows the .308 is possibly the most popular centerfire bullet in history. There are .308 caliber bullets from 110 grains to 220 grains suitable for military use.

Click to expand...

Suitable for military use? As in FMJ (or similar, that meets our own interpretation of the Hague convention we sort of habitually follow)?

Such as managed recoil load could replace the current issue M16/M4 M855 5.56x45mm load with reduced recoil and increased rate of fire compared to the M80 and M118LR full power loads.

Click to expand...

That sort of partially solves one issue (controllability with full-auto fire) but not any of the other, more important issues.

Improved logistics. The military currently issues the M16/M4, M110/SR25, M14 variants, and SCAR 17. Four weapon system families and four magazine designs could be reduced to one weapon system family and one magazine design.

Click to expand...

Improving logistics by bogging it down with multiple ammo types in one cartridge? You'll find mostly that the military issues M16/M4 variants to almost all soldiers. And then a smattering of other rifles based on very specific needs. (Don't expect to find a SCAR 17 in the field.) It's pretty streamlined.

Increased versatility. An operator can switch from firing managed recoil load to a long range full power load with a simple magazine swap.

Click to expand...

To what end? Why would a soldier say, "hand me a mag of reduced power stuff?" Most of what the military tries to do in training and the field is designed to simplify the complex decisions that need to be made in combat. Adding choosing appropriate power-level ammo for each need goes in entirely the wrong direction.

The drawback is increased weight and overall size.

Click to expand...

Yeah...and that's a big one. The few of our soldiers who do the most fighting tend to use a lot of ammo. And most of them are already carrying nearly (or MORE THAN!) 100 lbs of gun, ammo, and gear. Telling them they have to reduce their round count by half or two thirds because they've got big, bulky rounds (in several power levels they have to manage) is a no-go.

But you missed an important drawback: Every time you switch loads, your gun will shoot to a different point of aim. Sure, it's as "easy" as swapping to the mag full of lighter rounds -- until you go to shoot at an enemy and your bullets sail over his head or into the dirt. Now, if in the middle of the firefight the soldiers can remember to just switch to a different pre-set on their sights...

Remember, make things simpler, not more complicated.

It seems like you're applying way too much importance to the power-level issue, which really isn't much of an issue at all, and almost none to the real problems of weight, bulk, and simplicity.

If you absolutely must have one caliber something like 6.8 or 6.5 would be a far better choice. I'd say grendel as the range is in the same realm as the 7.62 x 51. As others have said the reduced ammo capacity of the 7.62x51 is a huge minus. 6.8 and 6.5 will give you a slightly reduced capacity but their positive attributes may offset the weight. But in reality i'm not sure two different rounds is such a big deal since one is only used in special applications. I could see a problem if 25% of troops carried one and 75% another.

The whole premise of the question hinges on this point:

Such as managed recoil load could replace the current issue M16/M4 M855 5.56x45mm load with reduced recoil and increased rate of fire compared to the M80 and M118LR full power loads.

Click to expand...

And that point (reduced recoil and increased rate of fire) is not a primary problem. Our soldiers do most of their combat shooting semi-auto style, one round at a time, because that's the best way to get hits.

Full-auto fire has uses, and controllability IS a nice feature of the 5.56/M16 system, but compared to the benefits of high-count ammo load out and low weight, it is far less important.

If you absolutely must have one caliber something like 6.8 or 6.5 would be a far better choice.

Click to expand...

But we don't absolutely have to have ONE caliber -- the supposed mass confusion and logistical muddle caused by fielding a handful of 7.62 NATO rifles and a few cans of ammo for them isn't the biggest problem (or in the top 50 biggest problems) facing our fighting men these days.

And (as we've explored in numerous other threads) the next big change in US infantry weapons isn't likely to turn primarily on a slightly increased caliber bullet. Probably the next big change will be when caseless ammo is perfected, allowing much greater weight savings and even greater ammo load-out per soldier. Then, when the entirely new rifles are fielded, then they'll revisit the caliber question and will most likely go so something a bit larger than the 5.56...maybe.

Quote:
If you absolutely must have one caliber something like 6.8 or 6.5 would be a far better choice.

But we don't absolutely have to have ONE caliber -- the supposed mass confusion and logistical muddle caused by fielding a handful of 7.62 NATO rifles and a few cans of ammo for them isn't the biggest problem (or in the top 50 biggest problems) facing our fighting men these days.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Right, which is why my next statment was: "But in reality i'm not sure two different rounds is such a big deal since one is only used in special applications."

I carried an XM-21 sniper rifle in combat in Viet Nam. I loved the accuracy of the 7.62 NATO round but it was heavy and a PITA to lug a dozen magazines. The guys with the M-60 machineguns suffered even more than I did in that heat, humidity and downpours. I would NOT recommend us going to the 7.62 NATO round for our primary rifle round. I would suggest going with the 6.8 SPC for general use and the 6.5 Grendel for general purpose sniping. That way everybody could carry more ammo and have bigger, more effective bullets to use in combat. You should keep in mind that when our troops engage foreign troops, many of those other soldiers are high on various types of narcotics before we engage them. Trying to stop a doped up enemy soldier with a tiny 55 grain bullet is stupid. We need a decent sized round for our general combat duty purposes but we don't want it to be too extreme either. The 6 mm rounds seem to offer good ballistics, good effectiveness and long range use too.

The military doesn't shop at MidwayUSA so the variety of bullet choices is moot. Counter to that, bullet suppliers essentially shop at the military by buying up surplus runs and pulldowns, creating a demand that is reinforced by industry producing better versions of the same. If the military wanted an alternative, huge money would be on the line and industry would step up quick, creating a later surplus, creating in increase in variety.

Claiming one bullet diameter to do all, it is just as feasible to use something else (how about 7mm, or 6.8?). Arguing the logistics side, the .30 cal option becomes even less appealing due to weight and size. If I want to hump around a load of 7.62x51, I don't want it to shoot like 7.62x39.

That brings us back to .30 cal nostalgia.

Ragsdale 30 cal said:

These debates very frequently compare a full power 7.62x51mm load such as the M80 or M118LR to the current issue M855 5.56x45mm load.

I rarely see any mention of the wide variety of bullets and loadings available to reloaders for the .308 Winchester.

Anyone who reloads knows the .308 is possibly the most popular centerfire bullet in history. There are .308 caliber bullets from 110 grains to 220 grains suitable for military use.

There are many popular "managed recoil" loadings for small statured and youth hunters. Typically, these are lighter bullets with reduced muzzle velocity and reduced pressure.

Such as managed recoil load could replace the current issue M16/M4 M855 5.56x45mm load with reduced recoil and increased rate of fire compared to the M80 and M118LR full power loads.

Such a change would provide two huge benefits:

Improved logistics. The military currently issues the M16/M4, M110/SR25, M14 variants, and SCAR 17. Four weapon system families and four magazine designs could be reduced to one weapon system family and one magazine design.

Increased versatility. An operator can switch from firing managed recoil load to a long range full power load with a simple magazine swap.

The drawback is increased weight and overall size.

However, the Larue Tactical PredatAR and FN SCAR 17 7.62x51mm rifles are examples of rifles that handle like the M16 and M4.

My contention is the improved logistics of one weapon system family and one magazine design as well as increased versatility of swapping a magazine from managed recoil to long range full power load outweighs the drawbacks.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

After the 7.62x63 ie the .30-06...................

I'm hardly a 5.56 fan, but I can see the problem with what the thread starter is thinking. The issue is a decrease in how much ammunition can be carrier while not giving the full benefits of such ammunition. If 7.62x51 were to become the main round, then some things would need to change. The whole fire and maneuver idea and the idea of fire superiority would need to be reexamined, because they are currently designed to work around 5.56, which is a light round that you can easily control and fire out in vast quantities. Secondly, the military tried to solve just about all the different weapons with one gun before. The result was the M14, which was too powerful to be an automatic weapon, too weak to be an LMG, to big to be an SMG, and lacked the mags to be a proper assault rifle. Possibly in the future, more weight upon soldiers can be reduced, which would free up the weight to carry big bullets. Additionally, new concepts in arms' design has resulted in weapons which automatically reduce perceived recoil, such as the Vector SMG. I'd like to see what such a system would be like on a battle rifle.

The 5.56 and AR platform have been in general use far, far longer than any other military rifle/cartridge combo in US history. It works just fine. Why mess with it? Going back to the 308 would be a huge step backwards.

The system we have right now is darn near perfect for at least 95% of the tasks we ask our soldiers to do. It does come up short when asked to shoot at longer ranges or through some barriers and the 308 would do better in those rare situations.

Choosing a round that is a better performer in rare situations while forcing our troops to be handicapped in the majority of situations just doesn't make sense to me. The concept of having a few designated marksmen in each unit armed with the 308 while the majority of the troops carry the AR seems like the right move to me.

jmr40 said:

The 5.56 and AR platform have been in general use far, far longer than any other military rifle/cartridge combo in US history. It works just fine. Why mess with it? Going back to the 308 would be a huge step backwards.

The system we have right now is darn near perfect for at least 95% of the tasks we ask our soldiers to do. It does come up short when asked to shoot at longer ranges or through some barriers and the 308 would do better in those rare situations.

Choosing a round that is a better performer in rare situations while forcing our troops to be handicapped in the majority of situations just doesn't make sense to me. The concept of having a few designated marksmen in each unit armed with the 308 while the majority of the troops carry the AR seems like the right move to me.

Click to expand...

Ditto:jmr40, the 5.56 works good when you need to be mobile, I say figure out ways to lighten up the M4 carbine, and develope some new bullets than can outperform the standard ball ammo, that's not such a big task.

Interesting discussion.
I'm a big fan of the 7.62x51 but also like the 7.62x39 as a compromise.

What does the military need a cartridge to do? Lot's of armchair commandos speculate about all sorts of ballistic advantages, but never look at the actual requirements.

The military doesn't need Dead Right There power levels. What they want is an effective hit, which reduces the ability of that soldier to continue shooting his weapon. Frankly, you could accomplish as much with an eye blinding lazer dazzler (which already exist.) If you can't see the enemy, you can't even shoot at him. Being otherwise perfectly healthy doesn't do a thing if a target in the sights isnt' visible to the shooter. He can't make a Shoot/No shoot decision.

What being gunshot does to accomplish that is actually a very backward way to accomplish it.

The second thing the military has discovered is that about 50% of the time, a soldier gets hit by a bullet that was never aimed at him. It's exactly why the 5.56 was chosen - we could carry twice as much ammo, and with burst or full auto, get lots more bullets flying around on their side of the two way range. That means more hits on them, reducing their combat power, and allowing our side better mobility to flank or overrun them.

The military isn't looking to make ammo heavier for the average soldier, they want to make it lighter. The biggest piece of dead weight is the brass case. I fully expect to see a polymer telescoped round adopted in my lifetime. All the technology is there, the weapons are at Battalion Level testing, thousands have been built, and SOCOM is a willing partner in testing. You get ammo that's 40% lighter - which means you carry 40% more for the weight. Mag feed goes from tapered curved to straight stick, which works more reliably, is more compact, and carries more. I expect quad stack 60 round mags.

The military rifle is already reliable enough for the extremes of combat. We've added optics the last ten years to do what? INCREASE HIT PROBABILITY. So that's about as far as we can go - other than increase our training budget tenfold and only get an incremental increase. It's money ahead to reduce ammo weight and shoot more of it, especially if it's cheaper.

Add a suppressor so we can actually hear on the battlefield (Korea issues one per soldier now,) and there's where we're going. Not backwards with heavier ammo and less firepower.

I don't think the military is too worried about changing anything. Their money, or what is left of it is going to unmanned drones (UAV's) and robotics. Future wars will be fought in front of a computer screen, in a basement somewhere.

Pilot said:

I don't think the military is too worried about changing anything. Their money, or what is left of it is going to unmanned drones (UAV's) and robotics. Future infantry support will be fought in front of a computer screen, in a basement somewhere.

Click to expand...

The Army just spent a good bit of money enhancing their environmentally friendly M855A1 5.56 cartridge while the USMC is using MK318 5.56 loads. The only cartridge being really considered in the Carbine Competition is also 5.56 (others are welcome for testing as long as the candidate supplies the ammo). We will probably be using 5.56 for a while.