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.
Because poster jackal hope to own one some say you though they were already in use by the military?
The request is for an interim Designated Marksman rifle. Not a general service rifle.We already have an interim service rifle
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.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.
salt & battery wrote:
[W]hen will they finally adopt a round in between the 5.56 and the 7.62/ 308 with a 6.5 bullet...
salt & battery wrote:
they don't raise taxes for that...
CapnMac wrote:
The request is for an interim Designated Marksman rifle. Not a general service rifle.
Amen to that, Vern. When I was a Small Arms Repairman (45B20) in Germany We had an M-60 that was unfortunately ran over by a jeep. We got it running again but the receiver was slightly ....uhhhh.... pinched! The gun would reliably fire, but the constriction slowed the rate of fire to about half what it should have been. And we discovered that the thing was devastatingly effective against any targets out to several hundred yards. It was very easy to hold it on target, it just seemed to have a perfect cadence for putting rounds where you wanted them to go.
If they could have found a way to cut the M-14s cyclic rate in half, and put a proper heavy weight barrel on the thing, it MIGHT have proved to be a decent S.A.W.. The M-15 was a nice try, but it still had that ridiculous 750 RPM cyclic rate. The ordinance people seemed obsessed with a high cyclic rate of fire.
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 changedMaybe 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.
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.The SCAR 17 was tried and found wanting. Just because it was backed by FN doesn't mean it was all that great. When it came down to an actual bid and contract, LWRC won supplying 7.62 rifles to the British using an updated AR10 chassis.
.
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?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.
Sniper rifle.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?
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.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.
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 bystanderSniper 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.
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.What happened to the 6.8 x 43 SPC cartridge that we heard so much about? That was more recent than 30 years ago, it was about 15 years ago. 6.5 mm has only recently come into vogue, say 10 years ago.
Your timeline is a bit confusing.
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.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.
IIRC, they are paying something like $4000 each to soup up M14s. Might as well see what the free market has available for that price.
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."...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.
there's no reason to scrap millions of rifles and billions of rounds.
I'm thinking all of that M855 could be surplused.
Why not write to your Republican congressman and point that out -- that's millions of taxpayer dollars going down the toilet.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?)