Pretend the 223 had never been invented... what caliber for our armed forces?

Status
Not open for further replies.
7.62x54mm: M-14, Smith Enterprise, Inc. enhanced Crazy Horse stock or the new, unproven, Lewis Machine Tool, LMT308.
 
probably woulda been stuck hefting around 7.62 NATO until recently now wed be using the 6.8 spc that will get renamed the 6.8 NATO
 
the 6.8 spc that will get renamed the 6.8 NATO
Click to expand...

That isn't happening. I know it'd be the SPC fans greatest dream but that's all it's ever going to be.

The logistics AND expense involved in adopting a new round alone would kill it.

No suitable 30rd mags, it's heavier etc etc etc.
 
kaferhaus said:
That isn't happening. I know it'd be the SPC fans greatest dream but that's all it's ever going to be.

The logistics AND expense involved in adopting a new round alone would kill it.

No suitable 30rd mags, it's heavier etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
Right! Cause adopting the 5.56 was a simple, inexpensive weekend project that netted huge returns and ended the need or any R&D, all done during a vacation in SE Asia and a poker game at the Iron Curtain cafe.

Sarcasm aside, I don't see the 6.8 being adopted either. More to do with red tape and our modern bureaucracy than anything else. There are plenty of other things for us to spend money on.
 
6.fanboy x whatever, a new caliber faces complete NATO adoption, something undereducated and non-military experienced shooters seem to miss entirely. You have to get more than a dozen separate and distinct governments to sign on. Good luck with that.

Two things to remember - to make it fit the intermediate caliber needed for assault rifle theory, the ammo has to be 1) smaller caliber and lighter weight, 2) which makes it shorter than 47mm cases, and an appropriately smaller diameter bullet which can be moved at higher speeds.

When you give up weight, you have to give up diameter to regain power as expressed in fps. You can't have ballistic coefficient with short fat bullets - all the .30 intermediate cartridges are slower and have more bullet drop. To get the speed and flatter trajectory, you step down to the 6-7mm range and get it.

From there you tune to the ACTUAL combat range used by soldiers with rifles - 500m. You don't worry about longer or shorter, that covers 95% of the individual combat shooting done. Anything longer range is likely a crew served area weapon, the Army has plenty of those.

The soldier isn't the One answer, he's one instrument playing in an orchestra of depth. He just happens to be the one who's most versatile and can hold ground.
 
Psyco Tyco said:
probably woulda been stuck hefting around 7.62 NATO until recently now wed be using the 6.8 spc that will get renamed the 6.8 NATO
Click to expand...
Isn't the 6.8 about the same level of ineffectiveness as the 5.56 in downiing Talibans at 400 plus yards across Afghanistan mountain ranges?
 
Last edited:
Right! Cause adopting the 5.56 was a simple, inexpensive weekend project that netted huge returns and ended the need or any R&D, all done during a vacation in SE Asia and a poker game at the Iron Curtain cafe.
Click to expand...

And in the late 1950's defense spending as a percent of the federal budget was how much larger than today?

I know you 6.Xers can't grasp this but rifle and cartridge development is a perfected technology. Just like the prop powered aircraft was in WWII it will take the firearm equivalent of the jet engine to warrant changing to something else. Probably some form of directed energy weapon, which is getting really close to feasible (time wise) with the leaps and bounds battery storage capacity is making.
 
Something small, light, and controllable on full auto. .30 caliber rifle rounds were decided to be obsolete after WW2 by most countries that participated. However we rammed the 7.62x51 down NATO's throat.

I would guess the .280 British or 7.92 Kurz would have stuck around longer, possible another .20 caliber round would have been invented. But the 5.56 was very much a round of the times, firearms designers would have gotten to their one way or another. They were already well on there way in the 40's.


When weapons designers first started to play with sub guns they simply cut down the current issue rifle rounds of the time, hence the 7.92x33 kurz or "short". This was affective at making an intermediate rifle controllable but not really a perfect solution. The Germans started this trend, followed quickly by the Russians. This is logical since the overwhelming majority of fighting in Europe during WW2 was on the Eastern front, so both sides came to smiler conclusions on a number of military tactics and equipment at about the same time. These conclusions essential drove post WW2 military doctrine and still do today. The modern .20 caliber rifle rounds that came out of it are the logical conclusion of this development process. All of them the 5.45, 5.56 and Chinese 5.85 are excellent rounds and will be in service for the foreseeable future, they are perfect mature technology. Only two things could change this, a major rethinking and shift of military doctrine. I do not see this happening because such shifts are only caused by massive wars, like a WW3 event. Or technology advances to the point to make them obsolete, maybe with case less ammo or energy weapons of some sort.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking the 6mm Bench Rest (BR) or the slightly smaller 6mm PPC. I also like the 6mm AR which is a 6.5 Grendel necked down to 6mm.
 
I know you 6.Xers can't grasp this but rifle and cartridge development is a perfected technology.
Click to expand...

That statement is as ridiculously laughable as saying the internal combustion engine is perfected. For sure it is getting close to as good as it can get with current technology, but to say useful improvements in technology are not still being made on a regular basis is pretty arrogant. Just like increased consumer awareness drives auto makers to strive for more effecient, cleaner engines, firearms and ammunition manufactures are constantly trying to achieve those little advancements in propellant technology and projectile metallurgy that will give them that accuracy advantage or make their ammunition more reliable.

As for the 5.56mm being the philosophical pinnacle of infantry rifle cartridges, I think not. Lest we forget, we rammed the 5.56mm down NATO's throat with the same self-righteous persistence we used to ram the 7.62mm. And while we are stroking the 5.56mm, let's also not forget that despite ammunition development being a supposedly perfected technology, claims of limited range, barrier penetration, and lethality still continue to haunt the 5.56. You can call everyone who believes such stories a mall ninja or armchair commando all you want, but the fact remains that such reports continue to filter in, and calls for something bigger and more lethal, and/or with greater range still continue to pop up on what is now an undeniably consistent basis. The 6.8 SPC, for example, was a concept that originated within the US Special Operations community and was motivated by a perceived need for something that ended fights faster. Progress here, then, growth, if you will, is being stunted not by a lack of better technology, but by a refusal of politicians to accept something less than revolutionary in advancement as being worth the cost. If the same standards were applied to our fighter technology, we'd still be rolling with F4 Phantoms because nothing short of a TIE fighter would be considered worthy of coughing up the dough for.

People are always fast to point out the cost of replacing a weapon system and adopting a new cartridge. Sure, but let's consider costs that could be saved. For example, with the right bullet design, a 130 to 140 gr, 6.5 to 7mm projectile could replace both the 5.56 and the 7.62mm NATO. While this endeavor would indeed be massive and costly, it is logistics that wins wars, and the logistical advantages to having only one cartridge as opposed to two or three would be huge. Then you consider that now, in a theater like Afghanistan, every rifleman has the ability to lay down aimed rifle that is effective to 500 yards, rather than having to rely on a SDM, or a mounted crew-served weapon. And of course, in a theater like Iraq, the deficiencies of the 5.56 addressed by the 5th SFG in their development of the 6.8 SPC, concerning lethality at even across the room distances, especially when fired from short-barreled carbines and sub-carbines, are also solved.

I really believe we will see blended metal technology and improvements in barrier blind projectiles, as well as practical, reliable, and safe caseless ammunition before we set our phasers to vaporize. But even if this technology really has gone as far as it is going to, and all advancements stop, the 5.56mm still isn't the end-all be-all infantry cartridge as better technology already exists...
 
That statement is as ridiculously laughable as saying the internal combustion engine is perfected. For sure it is getting close to as good as it can get with current technology, but to say useful improvements in technology are not still being made on a regular basis is pretty arrogant. Just like increased consumer awareness drives auto makers to strive for more effecient, cleaner engines, firearms and ammunition manufactures are constantly trying to achieve those little advancements in propellant technology and projectile metallurgy that will give them that accuracy advantage or make their ammunition more reliable.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough, then name ONE cartridge today that couldn't have been made 100 years ago.

NOT THE BULLET either. The chambering

Like it or not technologies do eventually mature and become as good as they can possibly be, examples include sail driven ships, riveted steel construction, recropicating steam engines, prop driven aircraft, metallic cartridges or even manual transmissions. If technologies could be indefinitely improved apoun we'd have steam driven automobiles still available today as the technology had a century on the internal combustion engine.
 
Last edited:
.308win/7.62NATO or 30-06 for the rifles.

7.62x39 for the carbines. I've heard some interesting things about the 6.5Grendel and the 6.8SPC, and trials would be conducted to determine if they were a viable option.

Or maybe just go with 30-06 all the way through. The 9mm would also be replaced with either the 10mm, 40S&W, or 45ACP.

Chris "the Kayak-Man" Johnson
 
Lost in the noise and collective orgasming for something between 6.5 and 7mm with a 110g plus bullet is the same problem 7.62 suffers from and that's ammunition WEIGHT
 
I think the .243 would of been the best option at the time.

I still think the military should go to the 7.62x39mm now, just to take advantage of all the stock piles of ammunition found in the zones we fight in now.

But thats just an idea.
 
6mm Rem. or 7x57. Welll, OK...the .243 wouldn't be bad either. But, you wouldn't save any weight over .308 brass with any of these. Bullets, yes; brass no.

Ever hear of the .308x1.5 wildcat? A .308 case shortened to 1.5". Similar to the 7.62x39but better ballistics. Think it would push a 150 gr bullet at nearly 2500 fps...a 7.62x39 with a 25 gr. bullet advantage. Again, you wouldn't be saving much over the .308.
Bob
 
6.fanboy x whatever, a new caliber faces complete NATO adoption, something undereducated and non-military experienced shooters seem to miss entirely. You have to get more than a dozen separate and distinct governments to sign on. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair, the US has traditionally taken the view that NATO commonality consists of NATO doing what it's damn well told to do. After we shafted our allies with 7.62x51 we turned around and adopted 5.56mm, and it only took us about forty years to make the minor move from 45 ACP to 9mm for weapons as minor and inconsequential as pistols and SMGs.

Of course, today it might play out different, since the point of NATO's existence is kind of hard to define and saying "screw you, new caliber time" might even be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I think the .243 would of been the best option at the time.
Click to expand...

Lighter per round, but zero savings in terms of bulk and volume. If I'm an infantryman, part of what defines my basic load is simply having the space on my body to put things where I can actually get to them.

The other problem with .243 is that it's overbore for what it is. Might not ever present itself in a deer rifle, but in an assault rifle or LMG, having a barrel that only lasts, say, 80% as long as 308 0r 556 translates into big costs across the total inventory. Given how well the military has handled Beretta locking blocks, maintenance wise, I'd also guess it means Joe goes downrange with a shot out barrel at a rate that would make a mindful shooting enthusiast's head spin.

Ok fair enough, then name ONE cartridge today that couldn't have been made 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

7.62x51 was only feasible with late 40s/early 50s technology in terms of propellant. It could have been made in 1906, but performance would not have matched 30-06 ammo.

Isn't the 6.8 about the same level of ineffectiveness as the 5.56 in downiing Talibans at 400 plus yards across Afghanistan mountain ranges?
Click to expand...

All rifle rounds are ineffective at 400 plus meters -- because the odds of you being able to detect and positively ID in time to engage are low, and then the odds of you having the time to line up ad make a 400+ meter shot while dealing with the physiological effects of being on a two way rifle range make "low" into "extremely low.

A different caliber does nothing to solve the acquisition/engagement problem, which has been the choke point in successful small arms engagement since about 1916 and is why engagements are rarely at much past 300 meters and successful ones are almost always within 100 meters.
 
7.62x51 was only feasible with late 40s/early 50s technology in terms of propellant. It could have been made in 1906, but performance would not have matched 30-06 ammo.
Click to expand...

7.65x53mm Mauser has been around since when? and is virtually IDENTICAL in ballistics to 308

7.62x54 Russian anyone

anyone remember 300 savage

There wasn't anything even remotely new or cutting edge about .308-7.62x51 when it was introduced
 
Last edited:
A fully automatic 30-30 lever action that loads from the muzzle. That is what they are working on now to replace the 5.56/AR type weapons. I know.. Cause I read it on the internet.
 
i think the real problem was the one rifle for everything idea. had the m16 replaced the the m1 carbine and m14 developed further like a bush rifle with a good us coast guard muzzle break, it would have been the best of both worlds. just like now you have the dmr role. ideally a couple of dmr's, a heavy mg, maybe a light mg and the rest m16's would be a better balanced force. with the heavy mg and the dmr's sharing the same ammo, and the light mg and m16's sharing the same ammo. at least imo.
 
All I know is that my old man told me that in the Jungle the M1 Carbine was an awesome gun to tote. He toted an M14 for the most part, but did some time with the M1 Carbine. He also said there were a lot of "Grease" guns over there.
He never had a problem with the M16 caliber in the jungle, but will let you know real quick where he stands, and he is a 30 caliber guy. Loves the .30-06 more than his children to here him talk about it.
I do know, and have shot the M14 on full auto, and I promise you this. It is uncontrollable. I tried my hardest to control that gun, and it just stood straight up. That was IMO its downfall. I have zero battle experience, but from my experience with a 7.62x51 on full auto, unless your enemy was on the next mountain top. It was useless as a full auto jungle rifle.
 
Like it or not technologies do eventually mature and become as good as they can possibly be, examples include sail driven ships, riveted steel construction, recropicating steam engines, prop driven aircraft, metallic cartridges or even manual transmissions. If technologies could be indefinitely improved apoun we'd have steam driven automobiles still available today as the technology had a century on the internal combustion engine.
Click to expand...

That's just it... technology keeps advancing in little steps until something revolutionary comes along to replace it. Examples include steam powered, then diesel powered, the nuclear reactor powered ships--each of these technologies seeing advancement in technology until it was replaced (except of course for the nuclear reactor which as of yet has not been replaced). Same with the jet replacing the prop driven aircraft and the automatic transmission largely replacing the manual. Problem is, there is, as of yet, no better technology available to us for launching projectiles. It may still be the technological equivalent of the steam engine, but it's all we got, and just like the steam engine, we must continue to make it as good as we can get it. People don't just throw their hands up in the air, declare they've gone as far as they can go, and wait for the next revolution in technology. We take small, incremental gains in our current technology until some breakthrough comes along and replaces it.

Another example would be the bow and arrow. It was the top of the line technology until it was replaced by the gun. But there wasn't a collective sigh of relief when we invented the longbow and realized this technology has gone as far as it can go and is eventually going to be replaced. And in fact, even centuries after the bow and arrow has been considered legitimate battlefield technology, we continue to improve upon it to the point where to this day, a modern compound bow is orders of magnitude above any bow actually ever fielded in combat.

So like it or not, we must continue to try and improve the technology we have until we stumble upon something better.

Thus, if it was up to me, a fireteam would look something like this:

1. Fireteam Leader- Equipped with a FN SCAR carbine chambered in 7x43 (.280 British). With modern propellants, we should be able to do 2600 fps from a 140 gr FMJBT bullet, similar in design to the Yugoslavian M67 ball round. It has a 3.5x ACOG with rangefinder and BDC, a DBAL or other infrared illuminator, and a 40mm underbarrel grenade launcher. He is also equipped with an FN FiveSeveN handgun equipped with a white light, on a drop leg. Standard load out is eight x 25 round mags for the rifle, three x 20 round mags for the pistol, an M67, and five 40mm grenades, including at least two HEDP round and one smoke round.

2. Automatic Rifleman- Equipped with something like the SAW, only with the magazine feed "feature" removed, and chambered in the larger round. Also has the illuminator on it, as well as a Grip Pod, and an Aimpoint for optics. He has a FiveSeveN as well in his standard load, which includes three x 100 round belts (4:1 ball:tracer loaded in soft "nut sacks" rather than boxes or drums), three x 20 round 5.7x28 mags for the sidearm, and either two M67s frags or one frag and a flashbang.

3. Rifleman- Equipped similarly to the Team Leader except without the grenade launcher on his SCAR. Instead, he typically carries at least two belts for the Automatic Rifleman and/or a portable rocket launcher, like the AT4. Also, he packs an M67 and a smoke grenade.

4. Demo/Breacher a.k.a "Door Kicker" Equipped with an FN P90 5.7x28mm PDW that has a reflex sight, infrared illuminator, and whenever possible or prudent, a suppressor, and a FiveSeveN handgun, as well as two M67 frags and two flashbangs. Also typically carries either a breaching kit, appropriate breaching charges, or a 14 inch barreled 12 gauge M870 Police with twenty rounds of 00 buckshot. Standard loadout has him packing eight x 50 round magazines for his primary and three x 20 round magazines for his sidearm, as well as a frag or flashbang.

Each squad has three fireteams, plus a Squad Leader and a medic. The Squad Leader is equipped similarly to the Fireteam Leader except instead of an underbarrel grenade launcher, he has an MGL--a six shot 40mm grenade launcher. The medic has the same loadout as the "Doorkicker" except instead of breaching equipment he carries his medical equipment.

I envision "my" military having something more lightweight and mobile for body armor as well. I am thinking a standard plate carrier with a Level IIIA plate front and rear as standard, with level IV plates, as well as side plates and the strap on shoulder/throat/groin guards and the rest of the junk being available. But since primary interest in this thread is the firearms, or more correctly, the cartridges, we'll keep it to that.

Basically, "my" military replaces the 9x19, the 5.56x45, and the 7.62x51 with two cartridges--the 5.7x28 and the 7x43. The P90 gets infused like the M1 Carbine--medics, drivers, Staff NCOs, and higher ups, and most non-front line troops are issued one to provide compact, automatic firepower in a lightweight package that is more accurate at a greater range than can be provided by a handgun. Infantry troops qualify on the SCAR primarily, but the P90 is used in conjunction with the short-barreled version of the SCAR for certain applications, like room clearing. The M9 gets replaced by the FiveSeven, which has greater capacity, less recoil, flattery trajectory, and better armor penetration than the 9mm. The primary difference is that I try to get a sidearm on the strong-side hip/drop-leg of every infantryman outside the wire. The 7x43mm SCAR has a standard magazine capacity of 25 rounds and a weight of around 7 3/4 pounds with its standard 16 inch barrel. All infantry troops would qualify with it out to 500 yards, as per the Marine Corp, but the majority of their time training with the rifle beyond boot camp would be spent doing the faster, closer, more personal stuff.

And that's my very long-winded two-cents.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Solomonson
  • Locked
What if an AK-47 chambered for the .223 Remington had existed in 1933?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
N
  • Locked
What if...?
Replies
6
Views
523
AJ Dual
A
Jerseykris
  • Locked
Shooting beyond a caliber's practical capabilities - just for fun
Replies
20
Views
744
Bbear
Bbear
DMK
  • Locked
What if the M-16 was never adopted?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
3K
SelfProclaimedExpert
S
kmw1954
Contemplating Rifle build, caliber?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
kmw1954
kmw1954
Back
Top