Jim Watson
Member
Studies of a "modern" 6.5 mm infantry rifle round considerably predate the 6.8 mm fad. They just go 'round and 'round. Studies pay very well, so there is a lot of interest in keeping something going.
The "Interim Combat Service Rifle"
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
Hanzo581
Member
Huh? No, that was his suggestion and I said I thought his suggestion was already in use by the military.
Since then I've seen it was in use by special forces.
CapnMac
Member
The request is for an interim Designated Marksman rifle. Not a general service rifle.
CapnMac
Member
The Mk 17 SCAR certainly looks like it ticks all the boxes o nthe RFI.
Only thing is that the DM carrying might as well wear a red flag.
Only thing is that the DM carrying might as well wear a red flag.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
They mostly go round & round because they circle the actual, optimum, answer (which, unhelpfully, shifts around just enough due to circumstance & technology that the debate never quite settles). 7mm Mauser was The First smokeless cartridge, and was at least 98% optimal for what we have since learned through experimentation to be ideal for an infantry cartridge.
I personally think it'd be more useful to look at this retrograde cartridge proposition through a lens of opposition; instead of fixating on the best advantages of 308 vs. 5.56, why exactly should we take on the worst disadvantages of the round? After all, those are the exact reasons that made the current status quo (that, and callously disregarding the sentiments of entrenched & interested military bureaucracy). Primarily, the roughly 50% decrease in ammunition capacity that infantry will be able to carry for any particular mission. Is that truly worth dropping the penetration-at-range disadvantage held by the less powerful 5.56? Additional range and penetration are rarely useful, requiring specific battlefield geography & long range optical sights and specific cover/concealment materials, but the advantage of twice as many shots is constant across every conceivable situation. Combine that with modern doctrine that enables us to more or less determine where & how soldiers engage or are engaged, as well as the tactical importance of mid-range suppressing fire, and those marginal advantages become even less important than they once were.
It makes no sense to choose 308 for anything but a niche stop-gap using existing logistics channels (i.e. the DMR program), especially when there are current off-the-shelf alternatives that exceed 308 ranged ballistics and exceed 5.56 ranged penetration, while giving up 10-15% of ammunition capacity over the latter (the various 6mm-7mm intermediate rounds, 6.5 Grendel being the logical front runner due to this newfound emphasis on range vs. SBR efficiency).
TCB
I have no idea.
34 years ago, as a graduate student, I participated in a "study" looking at a potential replacement bullet. Our study was probably one of many and was obviously preliminary since it involved computation only; not the fabrication or shooting of any cartridges. Our team came up with 6.5mm for the bullet, but we also concluded that none of the existing cartridge cases was a suitable starting point and so a new case would need to be developed. I think that probably ended up moving us to the bottom of the pile.
Maybe not now, but eventually as the greatest debtor nation on earth, we will eventually have to restore economic rationality to our government finances or suffer the unimaginable consequences.
And it will still be your pocket that the men and women of the IRS come looking to extract money from. And before you say something about the IRS, please keep in mind that I was once one of those so-called "jackbooted thugs" and so don't regard flippant comments about killing federal agents as anything other than treasonous.
The RFI is for an Interim Service Rifle. That is the designation on the RFI.
Now, we can look at the procurement limit of 10,000 units and conclude that it was intended to be a Designated Marksman rifle, but that is not the title proved for in the RFI which was provided in the post previously linked to.
So - consider me a machine gun novice, but I thought the whole advantage of the German squad weapons in WWII (MG 34/42) was their high rate of fire (800-1200 rounds/minute). In fast-moving combat situations, with only fleeting glimpses of the enemy, the rapid rate of fire increased the likelihood of a hit on running soldiers. They would fire short bursts, but those bursts had a lot of rounds in them.
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
this country was founded on not wanting to paying taxes and those who tried to collect them were considered the enemy. but I guess times have changed
You're confusing LWRC with LMT. They beat both the Scar 17 and HK for the Brit DMR contract. The original contract was for 444 rifles, to be used in helicopters during the London Olympics. They out shot the HKs to win that contract. Now they have well over 4,000 rifles. Pretty much, every squad gets one. NZ has just adopted the LMT .308 for that role as well. LMT is also going to be replacing NZ's Steyr AUGs with a version of their CQB 5.56 rifle as their new battle rifle.
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
it is really just a waste of big money and time all these trials for ultra expensive rifles that will not get used anyway. they are for hardcore combat in more or less open terrain. what would they do in the helicopters spray bullets into the crowd?
Sniper rifle.
Did you know some of the best snipers in our military are actually Coast Guard? Taking a shot from a helicopter chasing a drug boat, taking a shot to disable the outboard motor. Think how difficult that is off the coast of FL.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
It was more that their LMG was so light & reliable, and they used modern tactics with it. The closest competitor was the 1919. The reality was that it consumed so much ammo as to be a supply drain in even light or sporadic conflict. ROF is an anti-aircraft game, duration of fire has more importance on the ground.
salt&battery
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 781
yes it is hard but at least if they miss there is nobody around to hit with a stray bullet. I think in Britain the last attack the cops killed a bystander
FL-NC
Member
The 6.8 did what most new cartridges do- after gracing the various gun magazines, it got a large following. Then the following became small. Now its a niche.
Vern Humphrey
Member
You can file that in the same folder as the legend that enemy troops would listen for the "ping" of the M1s ejected clip and charge. It's an amateur's idea with no basis in reality.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Negative. Rock Island charged the gov less than half the cost for an upgraded M14 in a Sage chassis with a Leupold optic and general parts replacement than they were paying for a SR25/M110. That is why the program was initiated. A civilian can buy the complete weapon system for under $4000...
What I can't understand is how the SCAR H doesn't fir right in here. I don't mind the AR, but it seems like even the AR-10 would make no sense when they already have a modular and proven weapon system in their arsenal that meets all of their criteria.
Sunray
Member
"...called it the M14E2. It was NOT a success..." The FAL, on the other hand, was and still is in Third World armies. The idea of a 7.62NATO with 16" or 20" barrel is questionable though. So is the 'folding or collapsing butt stock', the 'ambidextrous' part(been shooting every kind of battle rifle, MG and SMG left handed with no fuss since before myself.) the folding sights, the bipod and the suppressor. None of which is necessary for a PBI battle rifle or currently available commercially in 7.62NATO.
In any case, the 7.62NATO is pretty much obsolete as a military cartridge anyway. Really was when it was jammed down the rest of NATO's throats in the 1950's. It's just a shorter .30-06. Too much weight, recoil and size.
"...BARs were useless..." BAR's are not rifles. They're light MG's.
"...military has lots of people with very little to do..." Yep. Colonels, generals and corporals all need to be kept busy or they start getting into things they shouldn't. And they still want to do everything the way they've always done it. Whether it makes any sense or not.
In any case, the 7.62NATO is pretty much obsolete as a military cartridge anyway. Really was when it was jammed down the rest of NATO's throats in the 1950's. It's just a shorter .30-06. Too much weight, recoil and size.
"...BARs were useless..." BAR's are not rifles. They're light MG's.
"...military has lots of people with very little to do..." Yep. Colonels, generals and corporals all need to be kept busy or they start getting into things they shouldn't. And they still want to do everything the way they've always done it. Whether it makes any sense or not.
FL-NC
Member
7.62 NATO is used with great effect in 16" and even shorter barrels by SOF personnel in our military, with folding or collapsible butt stocks, bipods, and suppressors. In fact, 7.62 AR based rifles have reigned supreme for many years at the annual USASOC Sniper Match here at Bragg, where the best sniper from the free world compete to see who is best over several days. These people need to be able to work inside of very tight quarters frequently- not to mention jumping out of planes, fast roping, climbing terrain and structures, etc. And any weight that can be eliminated from the 100 pounds of lightweight gear we use is always welcome- trust me on this. I will concede that ambi controls are over-engineering. The 11% of people who are lefties have operated the military's right handed weapons (and everything else) fine this far, in my observations. And as far as the military having little to do- I had plenty to keep me busy from day one thru year 23 during my time in. Mostly involving pretty intense training or important tasks preparing for the next deployment.
CoalTrain49
Member
Scrap millions of rounds of ammo? I'm thinking all of that M855 could be surplused. There are probably more AR-15's being used by civilians in this country than M4's in service. My neighbor would buy a few thousand rounds for what the military paid for it.
Sorry I mis-read this thread, but it really does seem odd to spend money on yet another .308 rifle when there are dozens on the shelf.
The military doesn't usually sell surplus ammo. There are some exceptions, ie DCM/CMP but they don't get rid of masses of ammo back to the public. (I've seen plenty of projectiles on offer but never live 5.56 rounds that were actually issued-- ditto for 50BMG, could be this MUST be pulled apart by law for sale?)
The military doesn't usually sell surplus ammo. There are some exceptions, ie DCM/CMP but they don't get rid of masses of ammo back to the public. (I've seen plenty of projectiles on offer but never live 5.56 rounds that were actually issued-- ditto for 50BMG, could be this MUST be pulled apart by law for sale?)
Vern Humphrey
Member
Why not write to your Republican congressman and point that out -- that's millions of taxpayer dollars going down the toilet.
- Status
