The Making of the Military’s Standard Arms

On a different note I have been experimenting with 9mm +P+ loads and 124gn projectiles fired out of a couple of my 92 Beretta’s and what a difference in power by bumping the 9mm charge up a couple of notches. I was literally breaking ½” cast steel targets in half compared to the stock 9mm ammo which only dented them. The Beretta‘s can handle the extra charge no problem. The muzzle velocity makes major in IPSC at around 1330fps.
 
I know a lot of ex/current military are happy enough with what is currently deployed, and a lot of that stems from personal experience of having not having been let down by the system, add to that that they really have no input into what the field, and this can skew ones opinion.

However looking at this with an open mind it cannot be denied that improvements can and need be made as there are better alternatives. We shouldn't stifle debate otherwise nothing will change, and I truly believe the guys and girls out there deserve the best we have to offer.

So far as ammo I think it's obvious now that the Brits were ahead of the curve but sidestepped by the Americans when they proposed the .280 British. Clearly you can't have a one size fits all without compromises, but the .280 seems the best option for both long and short engagements as compared to the 5.56. Additionaly it could possibly replace both the 5.56 and 7.62x51 and truly be a general purpose round for both rifles, support guns, and even sniper platforms both dedicated and DM. This was all looked at decades ago.

In terms of operating system the DI system makes for a great target rifle and has proven itself albeit with a questionable record in battle. It is telling however that no other rifle design has imitated the system, and when I say none I mean exactly zero as far as I know. Could all those designers at H&K & FN be that smart as to see the negative aspects of such a system? I simply can't agree with a system that dumps heat and dirt right in the heart of the operating system, neither of which helps with sustained fire. The Germans had clearly thought this out decades ago.

Despite better operating systems and ammo being designed and considered during and shortly after the Second World War it's ironic that current cartridges (6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel), and systems (short stroke piston, ACR/SCAR) bear striking resemblance to those from 65 years ago. I think a lot of the errors inmade were driven by American pride trying to field American solutions (DI system, 5.56, 7.62) instead of what was needed. Much like the reason the M14 was chosen over the FAL it would have just killed them to field a European rifle with a British cartridge, and I honestly believe that's what it boils down to. Now we're at a point where admitting the inferiority of the system is retarding change, and I don't think our troops deserve that.

The Americans did get it right with the .45ACP and the 1911, that much is FACT! :D
 
WWIII said:
Typical answer I expected from a mall ninja.





I think you should run along and play in your ninja outfit sonny because anyone who has just received his firearms license and is asking questions only a newbie would ask obviously has little experience in the military or in theatre killing enemy for that matter, unless of course it is in front of the television watching reruns of Rambo with your toy guns.
Click to expand...

You dont need your firearms license to be in the military meathead :) I just got my firearms license when I started doing security. In case you didnt know in the military they dont expect you to get one. As for handguns I havent owned one til this year also. I've USED them but never OWNED them. See if you werent such an ass and read ALL my posts instead of a few and think you know me. You'd have seen the ones where I was gone most of 2009 for work in venezuela and others doing business security for men who make more in 5 minutes than you make per year. But no you read one post and come out with your head in your ass. I still keep my house outside petawawa that I bought when I was in the service cause I'm young and if security doesnt keep paying the bills I may go back. But hey with those mall cop investigative skills. I might be able to give you a reference to work at the edmonton center


oh heres a pic of me being a mall cop in May 2007

untitled.jpg
 
TheManInBlack said:
You dont need your firearms license to be in the military meathead :) I just got my firearms license when I started doing security. In case you didnt know in the military they dont expect you to get one. As for handguns I havent owned one til this year also. I've USED them but never OWNED them. See if you werent such an ass and read ALL my posts instead of a few and think you know me. You'd have seen the ones where I was gone most of 2009 for work in venezuela and others doing business security for men who make more in 5 minutes than you make per year. But no you read one post and come out with your head in your ass. I still keep my house outside petawawa that I bought when I was in the service cause I'm young and if security doesnt keep paying the bills I may go back. But hey with those mall cop investigative skills. I might be able to give you a reference to work at the edmonton center
Click to expand...

The FARC is waiting for you in Columbia :rolleyes:, run along and play mall ninja I think your mommy is calling you.
 
Gunslinger said:
I know a lot of ex/current military are happy enough with what is currently deployed, and a lot of that stems from personal experience of having not having been let down by the system, add to that that they really have no input into what the field, and this can skew ones opinion.

However looking at this with an open mind it cannot be denied that improvements can and need be made as there are better alternatives. We shouldn't stifle debate otherwise nothing will change, and I truly believe the guys and girls out there deserve the best we have to offer.

So far as ammo I think it's obvious now that the Brits were ahead of the curve but sidestepped by the Americans when they proposed the .280 British. Clearly you can't have a one size fits all without compromises, but the .280 seems the best option for both long and short engagements as compared to the 5.56. Additionaly it could possibly replace both the 5.56 and 7.62x51 and truly be a general purpose round for both rifles, support guns, and even sniper platforms both dedicated and DM. This was all looked at decades ago.

In terms of operating system the DI system makes for a great target rifle and has proven itself albeit with a questionable record in battle. It is telling however that no other rifle design has imitated the system, and when I say none I mean exactly zero as far as I know. Could all those designers at H&K & FN be that smart as to see the negative aspects of such a system? I simply can't agree with a system that dumps heat and dirt right in the heart of the operating system, neither of which helps with sustained fire. The Germans had clearly thought this out decades ago.

Despite better operating systems and ammo being designed and considered during and shortly after the Second World War it's ironic that current cartridges (6.8SPC, 6.5 Grendel), and systems (short stroke piston, ACR/SCAR) bear striking resemblance to those from 65 years ago. I think a lot of the errors inmade were driven by American pride trying to field American solutions (DI system, 5.56, 7.62) instead of what was needed. Much like the reason the M14 was chosen over the FAL it would have just killed them to field a European rifle with a British cartridge, and I honestly believe that's what it boils down to. Now we're at a point where admitting the inferiority of the system is retarding change, and I don't think our troops deserve that.

The Americans did get it right with the .45ACP and the 1911, that much is FACT! :D
Click to expand...

I think it all boils down to $$$. The US and most of its NATO allies are under an extreme debt load to the point that the US is in danger of going bankrupt under plans for Obama Care and a whole host of other out of control socialist spending agendas currently in play.

I think the only cost effective solution is to look at tailoring the ammunition to be more effective at killing lightly clad Taliban etc using the same weapons systems currently in theatre.
 
I think the only cost effective solution is to look at tailoring the ammunition to be more effective at killing lightly clad Taliban etc using the same weapons systems currently in theatre.
Click to expand...

Well that's the problem, the 5.56 can only do so much and I think it's already stretched with what it has to do. If they change over to a new cartridge they might as well go to a new system altogether. They're actually in a tough spot, they need something better but can't finance a full out change so anything they do is going to be half assed.
 
The US has already tried all sort of stop-gap measures, like the failed intoduction of the SR-47, and the re-introduction of the M14 because these are cheaper and easier methods of adapting to the changes to modern warfare.

Ignoring the cost of R & D, with 1 million+ members in the Army, and upwards of 250,000 in the Marines, the costs would be astronomical to design and issue a new rifle.

The issue is also a multi-national one. All of the STANAG agreements have to be considered. The US cannot just place a new rifle/ammo/caliber into service without it conforming to STANAG requirements.

Maybe its time firearm manufacturers start to think like the aerospace industry and start multinational consortiums to bring out new battle technologies.
 
Maninblack; Just an innocent question here, Would you really go to war with a rifle that can only hold 9 rounds in it's magazine? I admit that the 450 bushmaster would be a deadly round up close but once you get out to 200-250 yards it drops quite a bit. I think the 450 is a great hunting round for sportsmen but if I was going to war I would rather the 5.56. This is my opinion only and I have never been in the military so I could be wrong in my opinion. Thanks
 
Gunslinger said:
Well that's the problem, the 5.56 can only do so much and I think it's already stretched with what it has to do. If they change over to a new cartridge they might as well go to a new system altogether. They're actually in a tough spot, they need something better but can't finance a full out change so anything they do is going to be half assed.
Click to expand...

http://www.defensereview.com/556-op...nhanced-terminal-ballistics-for-specops-sbrs/
5.56 Optimized/Brown-Tip Ammo: Enhanced Terminal Ballistics for SpecOps SBRs
By David Crane
defrev at gmail.com
May 14, 2008
Modified on 5/15/08 — Some information has been redacted/removed from this article by the author/editor (David Crane) for OPSEC.
Updated again on 9/11/09 with originally-provided bullet and manufacturer info redacted on 5/15/08.
A number of months ago, DefenseReview was informed by one of our contacts in the U.S. military Special Operations (SpecOps) community that our Special Operations Forces (SOF) assaulters/operators now have a new, specialized 5.56×45mm NATO (5.56mm NATO)/.223 Rem. round at their disposal that’s been unofficially referred to as the “5.56 Optimized” (pronounced “Five Five Six Optimized”) and/or “Brown Tip”, because the round has, appropriately, a brown tip.
The “optimized” nomenclature apparently refers to the fact that the round is optimized for subcarbines/SBRs (Short Barreled Rifles) and carbines from 10.5-14.5 inches, in order to provide optimum terminal ballistics out of the shortened weapon platform. We don’t know the maximum effective combat distance for the round out of a 10.3″-10.5″ barrel, but we’re guessing approx. 300-350 yards (unconfirmed/unverified). At present, we believe that the specific weapons for which the round was optimized are the…
10.5″ HK416 gas-piston/op-rod-driven SBR and 14.5″ SOPMOD Colt M4A1 Carbine, although the the 10.3″ Mk18 CQBR (Close Quarters Battle Receiver) direct-gas-impingement-driven SBR may also have used as a testbed/platform-focus for the new round (but we don’t know, at this point). We’ll try to get confirmation/verification on this. Right now, it’s just rumor.
Defense Review does not have all the facts about this ammo, yet, but we’ve been informed by one of our sources that the new round (the bullet, itself), rumored to be manufactured by Barnes Bullets, is made of solid copper (pure copper, all the way through) and weighs 70 grains, as opposed to the 62-grain M855 ball round. It’s possible that the 5.56 Optimized/Brown-Tip bullet is a militarized offshoot of, and therefore benefits from, Triple-Shock (TM) X Bullet a.k.a. TSX Bullet technology. However, we’re not yet sure whether the 5.56 Optimized round is round nose a.k.a. solid point, open-tip, or hollow point. The limited information we have at present would lead us to believe that it’s a solid-tip round, but we’re not sure yet.

Company Contact Info:
Barnes Bullets
email@barnesbullets.com Email
Click to expand...

Maybe someone with some inside info can chime in here
 
Gunslinger said:
Well that's the problem, the 5.56 can only do so much and I think it's already stretched with what it has to do. If they change over to a new cartridge they might as well go to a new system altogether. They're actually in a tough spot, they need something better but can't finance a full out change so anything they do is going to be half assed.
Click to expand...

does anyone know an estimate of the cost of this. I take it would be in the hundreds of millions
 
crashcollins said:
Maninblack; Just an innocent question here, Would you really go to war with a rifle that can only hold 9 rounds in it's magazine? I admit that the 450 bushmaster would be a deadly round up close but once you get out to 200-250 yards it drops quite a bit. I think the 450 is a great hunting round for sportsmen but if I was going to war I would rather the 5.56. This is my opinion only and I have never been in the military so I could be wrong in my opinion. Thanks
Click to expand...

yeah the magazines would need to be in the 30 range. I'm just saying the heavier bullet would get the job done better. something that hits and punches and not just tear through fast. I thought this page was interesting

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/bullet.html
 
I'm I understanding this correctly that people want a round that expands on impact with soft tissue and can also pierce light armour?
 
evan the cdn said:
I'm I understanding this correctly that people want a round that expands on impact with soft tissue and can also pierce light armour?
Click to expand...

Here are some of the needs IMO

low recoil (so you can shoot it lots without getting a flinch)
flat trajectory (because people suck at judging range)
low wind drift (because people suck at calling wind)
good barrel life (.223 is+10K .308 is+6K a 1500 rnd barrel life would never fly)
sectional density (so it can get through barriers and equipment more than armour)
Good energy transfer (expand, yaw or fragment)

Now any replacement must be able to feed through an AR magwell as there are so many weapons chambered in .223.
 
A 30 round sized magazine for the M16 holds 9 rounds of 450 Bushmaster, a magazine that would hold 30 rounds of 450 would be huge and that much 450 in a magazine would weigh a lot. I just can't see it being a practical round for modern combat. A better choice in my opinion would be 7.62 nato, lots of power and range+ 20 round mags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom