Battle Rifles vs. Assault Rifles

[bruce545]

I just read an interesting article- it seems that the Pentagon is rethinking our tricked out varmint rifle as it is very anemic at the engagement ranges found in A-stan and out of the cities in Iraq. No kidding!

During my stint in the Army (11B infantryman, if you care) I found the M16/M4 to be very light, very ergonomic, a pleasure to shoot, and it shoots well. Having been over in the sandbox, I also found that it requires cleaning (not news to anyone)- lots of cleaning! Too much oil and you have a problem. Too little oil and you have a problem.

Having the DM at squad level w/ a modified M14 is certainly a benefit, but I miss having the M60 GPMG stopping power we had in the '80's (...the pig wasn't perfect, but..........). Better BRM training would certainly benefit all branches of the service. We have funds for weapons qual. annually in most units on the AD side, but many NG and AR units had only FAMFIRE through the '90's and into the previous decade. All soldiers should be rifleman- not to be confused w/ infantryman. Rather someone who can engage targets out to 400+ meters w/ the M16A2. Get rid of the M4 from most of the line troops- it's cool looking w/ all of the Ninja garb, and suitable for MOUT (urban warfare), taking ships/airplanes/trains from the bad guys, and is a good sized weapon for the troops that have other than combat responsibilities. And get something better on the line.

I am all for the benefits of this rifle design- though I would love to see it fielded in .308 (7.62x51 NATO) as an AR-10 battle rifle w/ a gas piston rather than the current system (greater range; better one-shot stopping power; less fouling; greater reliability; etc...). Give the DM a better scope and bipod.

That said- the US Gub'ment has spent truckloads of our tax money on this platform. Enjoy the read.

http://www.military.com/news/article...ESRC=army-a.nl

[Rundownfid]

That is a very interesting article indeed. With an army as wealthy as ours I don't see the problem with training with multiple weapons. Especially as the AR10 type rifles are so similar in operation that they are conceptually the same as the M-4. While the ARs can be quick and effective at close range, the 62 gr bullets don't have the range and punch, especially when fired from the short barrels so convenient in and around cities.

We need specific camouflage when transitioning from theater to theater, it only makes sense that the optimum weapons would change to. One point that I would make is that a .308 might not be the best choice for the job. I would prefer a .260 Rem or a new cartridge similar to the 6.5 Creedmore. My thinking is that if you are going to a different weapon then maximize it for range and accuracy. A .260 fits the same platform as the .308 (hell it is the same brass just necked down) but the exterior ballistics are superior and the internal politics are nearly as good up close and better out far. This would give our infantry a true Kilometer killer, although most probably couldn't learn to deal with the wind adequately to hit often. Still being able to put rounds into the area would certainly be better than waiting for air support.

I hope the Army purchases the weapons, and it shouldn't be many as only actual combat infantry men really need the uprated gun, most troops are better served with a handy personal defense weapon instead.

[DethWshBkr]

Isn't that kinda what the 6.8 SPC was intended to be used for? A "step up" from the 5.56, but still able to carry more than the 7.62 or simmilar?

I mean, companies making AR platforms that have "interchangable parts" to allow CQB and longer engagements, why not a 5.56 upper, and a 6.8 SPC?

[nfafan]

Often wondered what our folks could do in Iraq or Afghapakistan if they fielded - at least a few per squad - good ol' Garand rifles; easily portable battlerifles capable of reaching out and touching someone at crazy ranges, or thru a mud-hut-wall, and with rock-breaking power.

Couple-three folks laying down 30.06 hell while guys with poodle-shooters maneuvered in for the kill.

IIRC, the troopies from Oz in VietNam always had a few "heavy rifleman" with FAL battlerifles, while the others in the squad carried M16s.

With modern logistics and resupply capabilities, this concept ought to be do-able.

[Wiley-X]

I'm really confused. I thought that the American military establishment said that long range riflery was a thing of the distant past and was not needed in a modern environment. Could it be that the people who said that foregoing marksmanship training and giving up a rifle that could reach out and touch someone were right?

BTW, you don't want them giving out Garands because that would reduce the supply for the rest of us. The M-14 is good enough.

[bruce545]

I'm all for exploring the world of not-traditional- military cartridges...although some poor Major at the Pentagon will probably have a stroke if asked to learn non-NATO calibers.

Does the current influx of 6.5's satisfy the extended range requirement? I'm all for the increased mass equating higher K.E. (thus a better kill ratio). Yaw, cavitation and wound cavities are fine in the lab., I would like a round that kills the Tango before he can self detonate. 29 virgins are good for him, but none of us are interested in joining him on the ride.

The .260 is an interesting choice. A nice mid-length cartridge based on the .308. My thought was the 7mm08- a .284 in. projectile w/ the same kick. I'm certainly no ballistics expert, just an opinionated and concerned citizen.

I guess the gub'ment never learns- the Spaniards outshot us w/ the 7x57; the Germans were slow on the mark w/ the 98K, but if they would have fielded some more of their 'wonder weapons'- the MP43/MP44 in the West- fighting in the cities of France could have been a little tougher for our Grandfathers; the NVA and VC fielded a better weapon for the humid jungles in the Kalashnikov design---- I believe that too many people in positions of decision making have gotten "stuck" on the SOCOM hyper-Ninja's black rifle. Cool looks over function-- at who's expense?

[PirateSteve]

6.8SPC I really think is the way to go. It's superior up close, and carries lethal ballistics out a little further than the 5.56mm. However, there's TONS of logistic issues in any switch. Just start off with how many millions of 5.56 magazines the military has in the system. That's just the start of how much money it would take to switch calibers at the same time as costs for other weapons systems are going up, while pay increases for those in uniform are going down. Just some food for though....

I think a more realistic option is going to be a heavier 69gr or heavier bullet that will fit the 5.56 brass, magazines, and current rifles / carbines. I think that solution is only a band-aid, and not even a good band-aid, but I think that it's a lot more likely to happen that a complete switch of calibers, or even more M14's going out.

[DethWshBkr]

[QUOTE=Wiley-X;1139154]I'm really confused. I thought that the American military establishment said that long range riflery was a thing of the distant past and was not needed in a modern environment./QUOTE]



HA!!! Can you say F-4 Phantom?

Bah - dogfights are a thing of the past. Who needs a gun on a jet. We've got missiles!



Even now, I say all this technology on the battlefield will be our downfall. I've thought that for a while. If all of our technology was great, why are a bunch of people with ultra low tech IEDs, and AK47's hurting so many of our men? Tech is good, but you can't forget the nitty gritty.
The 5.56 is good, but you shouldn't put all your eggs in that basket!

[NikeBauer21]

The thing that get's me is: We have the main demographic of our infantry armed with (m4/m16) 5.56, "covered" by (SAW/MG4) 5.56... where has the stopping power gone? I can understand uniformity in ammo within squads... but do we want our soldiers to have the best weapons or not? What ever happened to the firepower of the m60 for cover, and the Garand standard?

We've armed our soldiers with a .22 caliber bullet, to fight a war. While the enemy uses a 7x62 round on average.

Why not arm our soldiers with AR-10's, m60's, etc.. or something in a larger caliber, appropriate to get the job done? We've somehow established that a 5.56 round is the standard for fighting wars... why? Every new rifle that comes out is pretty much standard-chambered in 5.56...

We need more firepower.

JMO

[higher4hockey]

The thing that get's me is: We have the main demographic of our infantry armed with (m4/m16) 5.56, "covered" by (SAW/MG4) 5.56... where has the stopping power gone? I can understand uniformity in ammo within squads... but do we want our soldiers to have the best weapons or not? What ever happened to the firepower of the m60 for cover, and the Garand standard?

We've armed our soldiers with a .22 caliber bullet, to fight a war. While the enemy uses a 7x62 round on average.

Why not arm our soldiers with AR-10's, m60's, etc.. or something in a larger caliber, appropriate to get the job done? We've somehow established that a 5.56 round is the standard for fighting wars... why? Every new rifle that comes out is pretty much standard-chambered in 5.56...

We need more firepower.

JMO

agreed. except about the M60. The 240Bravo is a very capable weapon that fires the same round as the 60 did, but has less moving parts and less shit to go wrong. Navy uses the 240Bravo, I think the Marines use the
240Golf...the Army on the other hand..I have no idea.