You might have a valid point IF..
1) Car batteries/waffle makers weighed next to nothing
2) Occupied no space
US Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition
- Thread starter CV32
- Start date
You might have a valid point IF..
1) Car batteries/waffle makers weighed next to nothing
2) Occupied no space
Ok, you got me... trying to hide my laughter at work now...
I think your issue is that some of these guys have a valid point 'cause they do it for a living...
You missed the point completely (perhaps on purpose is my impression). The point you made was that doctrine is spray and pray. The point I made (with the actual doctrinal references) is that spray and pray is in no way shape or form part of doctrine. No matter how many undisciplined grunts film themselves doing it and post it on youtube.
As my distinguished colleague pointed out, the intent behind my posts was to demonstrate that you are talking out of your ass.
While I was conceding the point that I may be off on the spray and pray part based on outdated information, but that it doesn't negate other points that I have made, including the need for ammunition that is more controllable under full auto, has a flatter trajectory and lighter than 7.62x39, while still offering less deflection when going through barriers and better lethality at most combat ranges than 5.56x45, without making huge compromises on how much ammo the man/woman in the field can carry. Also that the only real improvement over the M16 platform for a standard infantry rifle would be taking a few reliability cues from the AK platform (pistons anyone?)
OK - 556x45 is more controllable under FA fire, has flatter trajectory and is lighter than 762x39, is waaaaaaay more lethal, and if barriers require penetrating there are better tools to do the job than the infantry rifle. The AR is a soldiers weapon, the AK is a peasants weapon (sorry, but it's true) - there is nothing the AR platform can pick up from the AK that correct employment and maintenance of the weapon wouldn't be a better answer for.
Maintenance is NOT a weapon issue - all weapons require maintenance.
I've heard they get similar net results, only the 7.62x39 is MUCH better at barrier penetration at typical ranges. I'm on my phone and can't post it up but there were some U.S. Army small arms test videos on Youtube that had the 7.62x39 holding its own against the 7.62 NATO at short ranges, while the M855 5.56, not so much.
Anyway the AK was first issued to Soviet elite and shock troops back when Western troops got a M1 Garand or a turnbolt, the it was only later when it became much cheaper to manufacture and its reputation for carefree reliability was established did it become known as "the weapon of the masses".
If there was a rifle originally intended to be a peasants weapon it was the SKS.
I have a legitimate question as I am very ignorant to shooting, especially at any sort of distance. With regards to a new caliber, say 6.5 Grendel that is supposedly able to be more effective at 600+ meters; Can soldiers even see the target to effectively engage them at that range, regardless of caliber? Based on our current training, is it reasonable and likely for a soldier to engage (and effectively) at 600+ meters? While I understand the need for a caliber with more terminal performance within its current operation use, I don't quite follow the notion of extending the effectiveness of the caliber beyond the capabilities of our soldiers. However, I am sure that I am missing something in my thinking.
With the right hardware, why not? We have confirmed kill shots at like 2500 meters. Not all of them would need it, but those with the right equipment could take advantage of its medium-range performance. The main advantages to someone running a reddot would be better lethality and barrier penetration without sacrificing long range performance or making major sacrifices in how many rounds the soldier can carry in the field.
Small arms engaging targets at 600m in battlefield conditions give speculative accuracy at best and won't be used to destroy a target. At that range you're merely giving away your position while you could engage the target with other (heavier) means. Rather, their desired effect on the battlefield is to fix the enemy in place while mobile elements maneuver to close in with and destroy them. Infantry sections and platoons have LMG's for this specific reason.
Are we talking about regular infantry troops or snipers who cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more to train? You lost me at ''reddot.''
I was referring to the fact that 6.5 Grendel would ALSO be of use to the guy who doesn't run magnified optics, at shorter ranges. By the way, to preempt any nitpicking, by "reddot" I refer to any unmagnified reflex sights currently in use by us or our allies. Also implied in that post that with the right hardware (rifle that's accurate enough and the right magnified optics), you could give the soldier the ability to take advantage of that caliber's performance at longer ranges IF there's a need for it.
Last edited:
Please stop posting, your are actually sucking brain cells from all the readers.
M855 is fine IF you hit the target -- Combat marksmanship outside the top SOF units is pretty abysmal.
There are better 5.56mm rounds than M855.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Back to the original topic.
How many rounds does the average soldier fire a year from their issue weapon?
Maybe 1k?
So going with the worst case scenario and using Crane Mk18 replacement data of 3,500 rds for a bolt and barrel (a lot of folks shoot frangible and it tears up the throats).
Your replacing a bolt and barrel about every 4 years.
So you adopt a Hk416 or SR-16 or whatever - and get 20-30k potential rounds.
Now take in affect that the average solider will be told to do stupid things by their Chain of Command, like scrape the crown of the muzzle, or for some stupid inspection requirement will use a Green Scrubie and Fast Orange on the gun, sucking out any oils in the anodizing, and removing the dry film lube from the upper and pretty much ####ing the guns up.
So basically you dropped the life on that gun to 4-5 years anyway.
Now for folks shooting 20k rounds + a year - a gun that is a little more reliable in adverse condition, suppressed and has longer lifespan parts etc - that can make sense.
But I will say that the best value for the government is currently investing in ammo, spare parts for the M4A1's, and training for the soldiers, AND the Armorers.
The biggest issue with the M4 is the Armorer support in the US Mil, and the users themselves.
M855 is fine IF you hit the target -- Combat marksmanship outside the top SOF units is pretty abysmal.
There are better 5.56mm rounds than M855.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Back to the original topic.
How many rounds does the average soldier fire a year from their issue weapon?
Maybe 1k?
So going with the worst case scenario and using Crane Mk18 replacement data of 3,500 rds for a bolt and barrel (a lot of folks shoot frangible and it tears up the throats).
Your replacing a bolt and barrel about every 4 years.
So you adopt a Hk416 or SR-16 or whatever - and get 20-30k potential rounds.
Now take in affect that the average solider will be told to do stupid things by their Chain of Command, like scrape the crown of the muzzle, or for some stupid inspection requirement will use a Green Scrubie and Fast Orange on the gun, sucking out any oils in the anodizing, and removing the dry film lube from the upper and pretty much ####ing the guns up.
So basically you dropped the life on that gun to 4-5 years anyway.
Now for folks shooting 20k rounds + a year - a gun that is a little more reliable in adverse condition, suppressed and has longer lifespan parts etc - that can make sense.
But I will say that the best value for the government is currently investing in ammo, spare parts for the M4A1's, and training for the soldiers, AND the Armorers.
The biggest issue with the M4 is the Armorer support in the US Mil, and the users themselves.
