This deserves a discussion.

jmr40

jmr40

Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
17,513
Location
Georgia
The previous thread was locked, correctly so, as a driveby. But this is I think a topic worth discussing so I'm bringing it back hopefully done right.

Some Said It Would Never Happen- Bye-Bye M4!

Revolutionizing Soldier firepower: US Army adopts next-gen weapons First photos of 101st Airborne soldiers testing the Army’s new rifles 35W
www.thehighroad.org

I think it is a fair topic to discuss. I personally have mixed feelings about the military "upgrading" to a more powerful rifle but I'm open to giving it a try and see what happens. They tried to use the 7.62 cartridge as the primary rifle 50 years ago and determined the extra power wasn't worth the added weight, greater recoil and reduced ammo capacity.

The new rifle is simply a newer high-tech M14 firing a hotter cartridge. I'm worried that it may prove to have the same shortcomings as the original M14.

That doesn't mean I don't think it shouldn't be deployed, just not to every soldier. Issuing 2-3 different rifles in different cartridges to a unit MIGHT be a better idea, maybe not. I know the logistics of supplying different ammo is a concern. But we made it work 70 years ago during WW2. They managed to keep our troops supplied with 30-06, 30 Carbine 12 ga., 50 cal. and 45 ACP even with the logistics available back then. And each unit had a variety of tools to choose from depending on the job.
 
Warfare requires escalation to keep the advantage in the battlefield. By that alone I don’t mind the trial. Time will tell if they are truly worth the trade off. I hope we carefully observe battlefield reports of their assimilation.
 
The knock against the M14 was that the 308's long range was wasted on an infantry rifle. Troops weren't going to be making 600 or 800 yard shots in combat with irons, and a lot of weight and recoil was spent generating range they couldn't use.

With the fancy new smart-scope that computes drop for you, I am wondering if long range combat snap-shots are back on the menu.
 
Not that hard to armor an enemy soldier, drone, or bi/quadripedal kill-bot against 5.56. Making them resistant to the 6.8X51 forces them into a whole different weight class, making them less nimble, stealthy, and deployable.

Our next infantry weapon will likely be some sort of EMP or directed-energy weapon.....if not simply a game controller.

If anyone hasn't seen "Screamers" lately, give it another watch. We are almost there and it doesn't end well for humans.
 
At the end of it, I hope the rifle that best serves our troops and keeps them well protected is chosen.

Maybe this is the one, but it comes in heavier with fewer rounds per mag.

Not so sure I’d want less rounds if headed into harms way.

On the other hand, from my understanding this 6.8 round is supposed to defeat body armor more easily than 5.56 NATO. With armor becoming more prevalent, I can understand the need to adapt. So carrying less ammo that’s more effective may very well be the right choice.

I’m no warfighter. Hopefully the decision of what rifle to field will be made by war fighters that understand the needs of the modern battle field. Give ‘em what they say they need and make sure it works reliably.
 
jmr40 said:
The new rifle is simply a newer high-tech M14 firing a hotter cartridge.
Click to expand...
Your comment got my attention. I trained on M14s in the Navy. I like that gun and operating system. I have never really warmed up to the AR, though I have an SFAR that I like very much. I went looking for more info and I agree, the XM7 is very much like the M14. It looks like they took the best things from both the M14 and the M16 and merged them together.
When I first saw the rear charging handle on the XM7 I rolled my eyes and moved on, but after reading your comment I did a search and found this on Sig Sauer’s website. It has a side and a rear charging handle! That’s cool. I like that. Here is the site I was looking at.
www.sigsauer.com

MCX-SPEAR

The civilian version of the U.S. Army's new XM7 rifle.
www.sigsauer.com www.sigsauer.com
 
Last edited:
The "niche" for people needing extreme range "knock down power" is pretty small, civilian or military.

There is a military 'need' for support weapons that can out range the rifles (or carbines) carried by a Rifle Squad/Platoon/Company.

How to fill that need is going to be an on-going argument.

I'm not entirely convinced that replacing a 7.62x51 with a 6.8x51 of nearly the same weight and volume, for, perhpas, 5 or 10% more "performance" is worth the supply chain chaos it would require.

Now, a round that was, say, 75% the size of 7.62nato but with similar performance? Say something in the 6-6.6x40 or 45 mm sort of neighborhood, that might be a discussion worth having.

Making an argument for a "in between" weapon for Squad/Platoon support that was 'more' than a Rifle and 'less' than a GPMG (and used as a coax in countless vehicles and aircraft) is also likely a discussion worth having. AFV and aviation supply lines are already their own thing. So, a "middle" gun would only complicate Company and Battalion Supply, for the need for Weapons Company's GPMGs. So, maybe that has less impact, than trying to re-equip every Rifle Squad.

Maybe.
Perhaps.
 
My opinion and a couple of bucks might get you a cup of coffee but I always felt we needed a .25 caliber round. A cartridge similar to the 6.5 creedmore with a twist to accommodate a 100gr pill would seem to meet any criteria an army might have. And no I don't have a creedmore (yet).
 
With every weapon there is a trade-off. Rate of fire, weight for not only ammo load and sufficient volume of firepower, but speed of target acquisition, as against distant range and effectiveness on target. For the fights we have been in against skinny people without armor at closer ranges what we have has worked well. Especially since they tend to have much shorter range weapons like AK-47s. My own experience as a combat veteran bears this out. But in my opinion some soldiers armed with longer range weapons in the mix are a big advantage. In the book, Black Horse Riders, my sniper friend, armed with a scoped and accurized M-14 did lots of damage to NVA in bunkers during the firefight. After he killed several, they realized what was happening and concentrated fire on his position. Fortunately, their AK-47's did not have the accuracy to hit him before he quickly took cover and the 7.62x39 did not have the power to penetrate his cover, a log when they did land shots. I had a tour with the M-14 and liked and a tour with the M-16 and liked it. Both were way better than what the dirty commies had. But if we are to fight more civilized armies with armor and better weapons we had better not be outgunned. The idea that we can have war without somebody getting killed or killing people just isn't going to happen. Machines fighting machines is great, but some folks want to wipe out other folks, sadly.
 
I really love the 30-06 cartridge and the 45-70 cartiridge but it was applicable to the day and based on warfare at that time. The firearms today are designed for the warfare today. I hate modern firearms and .223 and 5.56 NATO - it is just so utilitarian. I love long range. It doesn't negate the skill of modern firearms and close range combat. You have to delineate what you like/love and what is necessary/required. The warfare tactic of old was standoff weapons and to kill you enemy far away. When is comes to rifles, that is not the case anymore unless there is a sniper application in the battlefield. I am glad I am a sillyvilian now and can think about days past and enjoy my rifles that are capable of long range and test my abilities. Ultimately, guns are tools to accomplish a goal.
 
I remember seeing various reports on the math of rounds fired per enemy casualty. WWII was somewhere in the 30K rounds/kill range. Vietnam was estimated around 75K, and most recently GWT was 250K rounds of small arms ammo per EKIA.

So is this new rifle an admission that the 5.56 was never a potent enough round? Is it an admission that marksmanship has fallen off dramatically and the new rifle is easier to shoot well? Otherwise, it seems counterintuitive to be carrying fewer rounds when the trend has been an increased number of rounds needed per enemy combatant.
 
After packing one around the globe for 28 years, (and taking it into battle more than a few times) the M-16 / M-4 family has defiantly won my heart.
The basic platform doesn't seem to have changed all that much as far as the individual issue weapon goes.

As far as the round itself goes... IMHO, the new 6.8 round allows for a very similar weapon, and has more juice behind it, so that's not a bad thing.
Civilian AR people have been doing different calibers for quite some time now too. (just not me)

Well, except that it will take forever (if at all) for it to trickle down to the civilian markets at an attractive price.
For the foreseeable future (probably my lifetime) it will be prohibitively expensive for an average Joe like me to also make the switch.
However, I'm comfy enough with my 5.56.

In any case, like the SGM said... "Time comes I need one, there'll be plenty of them laying around."... LOL.
 
Last edited:
The problem with the .308 service rifles for long range:
- M80 ball has a short bearing surface and is inaccurate.
- Aperture sights lack precision.

So, a .277"/150 gr. ball (or 140 gr. TSX) in the .308 case, and a rifle, with an ACOG/VCOG, chambered for it.
 
I will just say from a ground pounder stand point ounces become pounds when you have to carry equipment and ammo all day. For the first few years I was a 12B combat engineer and was assigned the M60 for most of the time as a junior enlisted soldier (E1 - E4). I do not want any extra weight slowing me down nor causing damage to my joints if I can avoid it. And carrying all that extra weight is why I have bad knees/hips. I averaged 130 -135 pounds while I was in and my field gear and M60 weighed more than I did. And yes I do have experience with the M16A1, M16A2, M60 and sidearms in combat.

I can see replacing the 7.62x51 with the 6.8x51 in the current roles that 7.62x51 now fill. I also agree that something with more punch than 5.56x45 is needed for defeating body armor.
 
I'd question the priority of upgrading small arms ..now, VS. the other things we need to upgrade based on what we're learning by observing the UKR conflict. I was in the UKR in 2015 observing the capabilities that the Russian Armed Forces had demonstrated, it was eye opening and frankly caught us somewhat flatfooted. Their cyber and UAS capabilities were something that we hadn't seen, nor expected.

Every proponent has their modernization wishlist right now, some based on increased peer or near peer capabilities, other based on our older equipment wearing out. Small arms upgrades are in the mix "somewhere". Right now the UKR/RUS conflict is mostly an artillery and long range precision missile dual, enabled by cheap and plentiful targeting assets. This in itself opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to force protection.

Maybe a new machine that rapidly digs trenches might be of more value that a new infantry weapon. There's only so much modernization money to go around.
 
We are still a long ways away from removing the X from XM7 and XM250. Until then nothings settled and allot can change. Personally I don't think it will replace the M4 & M249 but compliment then in certain situation much the way the M110 did at the unit level. If they do switch it will be slow and incrementally over years if not longer to allow the supply chain to catch up.
 
Im very skeptical the XM7 will get full adoption. I think field trials will show it has the same problems inherent with all battle rifles. Heavier weight, less rounds, and harder to control. It's a really cool rifle though. Got to see one briefly at Ft Benning/Moore earlier this year.

Also with the proliferation of ceramic body armor Im skeptical of the armor penetration that is being claimed.

The US Army is already fielding HK417s as a DMR. Add in the M249 and the M240L and modern Infantry platoons definitely have range capabilities.

On the other hand I believe the XM250 could be a game changer. Very light weight for a belt fed. And Sig already has 7.62 models if the 6.8 doesn't get adopted.
 
12Bravo20 said:
I can see replacing the 7.62x51 with the 6.8x51 in the current roles that 7.62x51 now fill
Click to expand...
There's only about a 1% weight difference between the two, and the "improved" 1000m performance needs hybrid cases and huge chamber pressures (and, likely, more barrel wear). If there was 20% performance difference, maybe.

The number of vehicle mounted 7.62nato MGs is probably a much larger barrier to change. Which does invite the question of whether we need a "better" 7.62 sor t of round. Perhaps that's something around 8x50 or 8x55. Or, maybe 7.5x45. I don't know. This is spitballing. But, there would be utility in a 7.5x45 or 8x50 or similar if it were effective out to 1.2 or 1.5km ranges. Preferably without needing whiz-bang tech. That would serve GPMG and vehicle use about equally.

mcb said:
allow the supply chain to catch up.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the trick of it. The logistics has to pre-exist. So, you magazines, belt links, boxes and ammo cans for both of those; then crates to carry the boxes. And a loading plan for the trucks and CONEX boxes, and a Table of Supply down to Regiments, and down from Regiment as well.
Otherwise you wind up where the Brits were in 1914, with rebuilt 1899 SMLE with sights for Mk3 ammo trying to shoot Mk5 ammo, and being hopeless at that.

There's another flip side here, too. The T65 cartridge, which gave birth to the 7.62x51 started development in the mid 40s. It's in use all over the world. All 32 nations in NATO use the round in some capacity. As do all of the SEATO nations. So, the logistical "tail" on the round is rather larger than a mere glance might suggest. Which becomes its own hurdle in any proposal to change. Anything you number in thousands of millions will have its own inertia, just mathematically.

So, the gain in performance, or in economy, or whatever needs to be significant, probably on the order of >20%.

Especially when a single 25-30kg artillery shell does more actual battlefield damage--and at 10 or 20km remove--than any one rifle or MG cartridge can.
 
CapnMac said:
There's only about a 1% weight difference between the two, and the "improved" 1000m performance needs hybrid cases and huge chamber pressures (and, likely, more barrel wear). If there was 20% performance difference, maybe.
Click to expand...
When you are the guy carrying the M60 or M240 on foot then every ounce of weight saved is an improvement.
 
Howland937 said:
I remember seeing various reports on the math of rounds fired per enemy casualty. WWII was somewhere in the 30K rounds/kill range. Vietnam was estimated around 75K, and most recently GWT was 250K rounds of small arms ammo per EKIA.

So is this new rifle an admission that the 5.56 was never a potent enough round? Is it an admission that marksmanship has fallen off dramatically and the new rifle is easier to shoot well? Otherwise, it seems counterintuitive to be carrying fewer rounds when the trend has been an increased number of rounds needed per enemy combatant.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read into those statistics for any interesting conclusions.
Urban vs jungle vs battlefield.
Training vs combat ratios.
 
CapnMac said:
No argument from me on that point. But, what I'm hearing from Crane is one percent (rounded up). As in only a bit more than 1/8 ounce per pound (±10 grams per KG), and that's with the hybrid cases. Bimetalic cases would likely erase the difference.
Click to expand...
When I had to carry the M60 while on foot, I looked for any way to reduce the total amount of weight I had to carry. And ounces equals pounds when you have to carry it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
Killing power comparison
Replies
4
Views
754
Cosmoline
C
B
  • Locked
Single All Around Cartridge?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
136
Views
7K
meanmrmustard
M
H
  • Locked
1958 Rifles A Modern Encyclopedia by Henry M Stebbins
Replies
17
Views
1K
Hangingrock
H
R
  • Locked
7.62x25 Tok vs. 30 Mauser
Replies
6
Views
822
303tom
3
nwilliams
  • Locked
Ok Experts: Compare M1 Garand to M1a
Replies
2
Views
566
Telperion
T
Back
Top