What would you like to see as the standard issue weapon for our services?

[Geronimo45]

meaning they'll run better in very short carbine lengths and with suppressors on them.

Thanks for your explanation of the issue.
How/why, exactly, do gas piston designs perform better with suppressors? Just curious. Less stress on some parts or other?

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

I see something of a disagreement in this thread over whether soldiers should be armed with "Battle Rifles", meaning a weapon firing a full-power rifle cartridge a la .308, or "Carbines"/"Assault Rifles", typically firing a medium-power rifle cartridge like the .223/5.56. At the heart of this matter is not the brand of rifle, but the tactics involved. In recent years, the trend has been to discard "Battle Rifles" in favor of "Assault Rifles" or "Carbines". Is this something we want to reverse?

Frankly, I don't believe that reverting to a battle rifle configuration for standard issue would be advantageous. As another poster said, most combat occurs at distances well within the max range of our current issue weapons, at around 100 yards or so. That may not always be the case, but I can't envision circumstances where that would change. Just a few years ago, I thought that submachine guns would be replacing carbines for infantry, particularly infantry deployed in urban areas. My understanding is that submachine guns are no longer favored because of both a lack of stopping power/accuracy (i.e, inherent weaknesses of the weapon type), and increasingly short-barreled configurations of the M4/M16 family (and assault rifles, generally).

I've heard more than one person say that the 5.56 round is also afflicted by a lack of stopping power. I don't know if that's true, as I've never seen the effects in combat. At any rate, I could understand a future move to a slightly heavier round in an assault rifle configuration (probably still within the M16 family). I've heard a few people suggest bringing back the M14 (or a similarly accurate and powerful Battle Rifle) in a designated marksman role. That sounds like a good idea, unless there's some reason why this isn't necessary.

So, to conclude, I have questions:

1. Am I wrong in thinking that it would be disadvantageous to return to a battle rifle issue configuration?
2. Is there a need for a DRM?
3. Is the 5.56mm cartridge adequate?
4. Can the 5.56 be improved upon by adopting a larger caliber (one that's still controllable during rapid fire)?

 

[Evil Monkey]

The 5.56mm is perfectly adequate. It allows a soldier to carry more ammo into battle. If 90% of infantry combat is under 300 meters, then a weapon should be devised for that type of combat. Oh wait, it's already here and it's called the assault rifle. That 10% from 3-500+ meters can be dealt with a 7.62x51mm marksman rifle. That's what the weapon exists for. I believe the Marines and the Army have the SDMR and SAMR for marksman rifles. Both use 5.56mm and might be issued 77gr match munitions.

Is there a need for a DMR? It depends on doctrine. Some armies have it some don't. Some have made one from an existing assault rifle like the US army and marines (SAMR and SDMR). The Germans I believe don't even have a special marksman rifle since the G36 already has a 3.5x scope. However, I've heard in Afghanistan, they issue a 7.62x51mm G3 or G3/SG1 for marksman because of the terrain. The Russians went forth and created a purpose built marksman rifle, the SVD. The SVD maybe fine for how the Russians use it but such a weapon appears to be unacceptable in the US military because the doctrine is that every soldier in the squad must be able to participate in CQB combat. Doing door to door work in Iraq would be rather awkward with an SVD rifle. So it all depends on doctrine.

I's also say that yes, we can adopt a bigger round but why? The 5.56mm works and it would take too much money for a complete switch. For what all that money, so that when we get a 6mm into service people will start complaining all over again that it's not a 308? And that the 6mm isn't "fast and vicious" like the 5.56mm?

 

[FourNineFoxtrot]

Evil Monkey-

Thanks for the heads-up on the SAMR/ SDM R; I had no idea they'd modified M16s to use in that role. I didn't know that they were using designated marksmen again. I thought that had been phased out. Glad to see I was wrong... I must be a bit behind the times.

I suppose it makes more sense to have a SDM using the same ammo as the rest of the squad, as opposed to something like a .308. In my reading up on those terms, it looked like the SDM isn't intended to perform as a squad-embedded sniper, but to provide accurate fire in squad support either within normal ranges, or slightly beyond normal range. Considering that the battlegrounds are largely urban these days, and for the foreseeable future, I guess that makes sense.

 

[ugaarguy]

How/why, exactly, do gas piston designs perform better with suppressors? Just curious. Less stress on some parts or other?

Keep in mind that suppressors suppress noise, in very simple terms, by holding in gases and slowly releasing them at lower velocity, rather than the gases coming out the muzzle uncontrolled at high velocity creating the noise of the muzzle blast. With direct gas impingement this causes back pressure and that back pressure comes back down the gas tube, down the charging handle, and into your face. There are charging handles like the Gas Buster which are designed to reduce this affect. With a piston system the gas does the work at the front end, sending the piston back to cycle the bolt, and the excess gas dissipates up front.

With a shorter barrel you're putting the gas port closer to the action and it generally pushes the bolt faster & harder, and increases the cyclic rate of the weapon. The fixes include pigtail curled gas tubes to effectively lengthen the tube. You'll also see gas tubes or gas blocks with a screw type adjustable valve to regulate the amount of gas sent down the tube. These are used both on suppressed and short barrel AR type rifles. With piston operated systems you can also use valves & ports to regulate the amount of gas pushing the piston, and the resultant velocity at which the piston is pushed.

I'm not an engineer but from reading it seems that piston based systems are easier to regulate than direct gas impingement. Because you're not shooting gases back into the action to cycle it piston operated systems also tend to stay cleaner in the action, with the piston taking the brunt of the fouling.

 

[desert]

How come we don't see more gas relief valves like the one that was on the Sionics can for the M14 used in Vietnam? It looked like it was taken off a pressure cooker!

I don't see that on the newer designs.

You think mounting one of these on all cans will be of help?

 

[Evil Monkey]

it looked like the SDM isn't intended to perform as a squad-embedded sniper, but to provide accurate fire in squad support either within normal ranges, or slightly beyond normal range. Considering that the battlegrounds are largely urban these days, and for the foreseeable future, I guess that makes sense.

That's how pretty much all marksman rifles are used for. However, they are built differently from one another so that they can be dominant in one instance of fighting. The US 5.56mm DMR's are built so that the soldier can conduct CQB reasonably well. The Russian SVD are built to give harassment fire up to 800 meters. Both can do exactly what you described as providing accurate fire support up to slightly beyond average engagement ranges. However, the 5.56mm SDMR would be severely underpowered around 800meters and may not have the accuracy needed due to wind and the light weight bullet. Also, the SVD would be too long to use as a CQB weapon and ten rounds is too little a capacity.

Both work well in urban terrain. In Iraq the 5.56mm DMR apparently does fine. In Chechnya, the Chechens using SVD's in ambushes almost always under a 100meters also do fine. In an urban combat zone, you probably can get away with using something like an M4 carbine with a scope as a marksman rifle too.

It is in my opinion that in urban combat, anything that fires a rifle cartridge and has a scope can fulfill the DMR role.

 

[ugaarguy]

How come we don't see more gas relief valves like the one that was on the Sionics can for the M14 used in Vietnam? It looked like it was taken off a pressure cooker!

I don't see that on the newer designs.

You think mounting one of these on all cans will be of help?

That's way beyond my knowledge to comment on. My layman's understanding is that modern suppressors are getting quieter and quieter all the time with advances in lubricants & baffle designs.

My only semi-educated guess is that the gas relief valves like the one on the old Sionics can somehow interfere with the reduction of the sound signature to a significant degree. Otherwise I can't imagine why they wouldn't use them on at least some modern cans.

Maybe we can get a someone with more knowledge to comment? Or perhaps start a new thread to discuss the intricacies of suppressing an automatic/semi-automatic rifle?

 

[pablo45]

I would like the m4's across the board only Bushmaster and upper quality and magazines all factory, no after market stuff. I would also like to see the soldiers being able to take there own sidearms if they so choose. With the Beretta or whatever their unit is issued as a backup. With the after market magazines of the beretta gone and all factory magazines issued only.

 

[ugaarguy]

I would like the m4's across the board only Bushmaster and upper quality and magazines all factory, no after market stuff.

You might take a read here and learn just how much better the current military issue Colt and FN M4/M16 rifles are compared to Bushmaster and almost all other civilian AR-15s. Bushmasters may be nicer than commercial Colts, but they just don't compare to Military/LE market Colt ARs, nor do they compare to LMT & Sabre ARs from what I've seen. After that take a look here and see how good the aftermarket Magpul PMAGs are. Sometimes aftermarket is just as good, if not better.

I would also like to see the soldiers being able to take there own sidearms if they so choose. With the Beretta or whatever their unit is issued as a backup. With the after market magazines of the beretta gone and all factory magazines issued only.

Much like the issue with the rifles, a standardized sidearm is a good thing. When everyone's sidearm uses the same mags and shoots the same ammo it makes things far simpler on the supply chain. I agree that the Checkmate brand mags for the M9 were crap, but that doesn't make all aftermarket mags crap. Mec-Gar of Italy actually makes Beretta's factory mags (and many other top makers' factory mags) and they make a top notch product whether their name or the gun manufacturer's is stamped on the mag.

 

[collateral]

Developed the T-34 the first tank with sloped tank armor.

They didnt develop a few major elements, like the suspension system, an American inventor sold it to them.

1. Am I wrong in thinking that it would be disadvantageous to return to a battle rifle issue configuration?
2. Is there a need for a DMR?
3. Is the 5.56mm cartridge adequate?
4. Can the 5.56 be improved upon by adopting a larger caliber (one that's still controllable during rapid fire)?

1. No, not in my opinion.
2. I think the idea of a DMR is good, the squad can gain a lot from having somebody who can put shots on target at long ranges, and who might have more experiance scouting or tracking.
3. I think at common engagement ranges, and with the right bullet (no armor piercing rounds vs human targets), 5.56x45 can be devastating. I am in love with the new 77 grain rounds from black hills.
4. Quite possibly, but I cant see any round offering so much more than the 5.56 that it would be worth retooling and re-equipping our entire military for the new round and weapon system.

 

[RSVP2RIP]

I'd like to see them with the SR47.

Takes AK mags and is still a AR. If it was a gas op-rod gun it would be the best.

 

[danthegunman]

Need I say more?

[/IMG]
308 vs 5.56

 

[Evil Monkey]

Need I say more?

OK? What are you trying to prove?

 

[Number 6]

Need I say more?

Yes you do. We can see that one is bigger than the other. That is great, but that does not in any way address lethality concerns. I can put a 50 BMG next to a 7.62x51 and make the same claim.

 

[RNB65]

This poll is fundamentally flawed. The first step should be to study the cartridge. Since most of the military is switching to a carbine length rifle (M4), a detailed analysis of the combat effectiveness of the 5.56mm cartridge fired from an SBR is badly needed. Then test it against other intermediate cartridges to decide which provides the best combat effectiveness while meeting the need for low recoil and low weight.

Deciding which cartridge to use is the first priority. Only then should they begin to consider which rifle to fire it from.

 

[danthegunman]

The question was and I quote: What would you like to see as the standard issue weapon for our services?

My reply was the M-14!

The 50 BMG is not a standard issue weapon, and wasn't even included in the poll.

I was simply trying to say that the 5.56 does not compare to the end results of the .308!

 

[Evil Monkey]

I was simply trying to say that the 5.56 does not compare to the end results of the .308!

OK, so you've proven to us that you are ignorant.

Well anyway, enjoy your m14.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

I voted Ak47. Far more reliable IMHO.

 

[danthegunman]

Quote:

I was simply trying to say that the 5.56 does not compare to the end results of the .308!

OK, so you've proven to us that you are ignorant.

Now that is not nice.

 

[Number 6]

I was simply trying to say that the 5.56 does not compare to the end results of the .308!

And what data do you have to support that? That one cartridge is bigger than the other? That's not really a conclusive argument.

The 50 BMG is not a standard issue weapon, and wasn't even included in the poll.

The M107 is issued to our troops and is chambered in 50 BMG.

 

[danthegunman]

Number6, I don't have any hard facts to support what I was trying to say.

I'm sorry that I offended anyone.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I'm sorry that I offended anyone.

Don't worry about it, you didn't offend anyone. And it was certainly not my intent to offend you.

I just agree with Number 6 in that you didn't provide any evidence why a bigger round was better.

I see alot of people who yell "308!!!" and "bring back the m14!!!" and reports prove that a bigger round is not a good general purpose cartridge and that the m14 had problems all on its own. Nor can they prove that a bigger round is appropriate for modern militaries as an infantry rifle cartridge.

 

[Browning]

Maybe something like Magpul Masada or the G-36 in a caliber between 6 and 7mm.

It's as light in weight as the AR/M-16 family, that caliber would give it more range and it would also give the troops more penetration/lethality at close range urban fighting (which is probably more of an issue than the increased range) without much recoil for people that don't get much training beyond weapons familiarization and it would get us away from the Stoner gas system which is pretty freaking dirty and which is the one of the things wrong with the AR/M-16 family.

 

[Hoppy590]

Galil or Valmet would be a nice choice. so would the Sig 550