US Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition

TRaTSeRiF said:
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.
Click to expand...

I covered what you just said in these two previous posts:

yohann160 said:
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.
Click to expand...

yohann160 said:
Are we talking about regular infantry troops or snipers who cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more to train? You lost me at ''reddot.''
Click to expand...

Now, to reiterate my meaning in even simpler language: taking shots at a target in actual field conditions isn't exactly like bench-resting paper targets at the range on a Sunday, which is why I am baffled as to why taxpayers need to be burdened with additional millions of dollars of investments to purchase a new rifle for infanteers (who on average can hardly pass PWT 3 without the RSO faking results) to score theoretical head shots at 600m to content whiny internet ninjas who share an ungodly love affair with 7.62x39 and pistons while the current system does the job better than most soldiers could ever dream of in the first place.
 
yohann160 said:
Now, to reiterate my meaning in even simpler language: taking shots at a target in actual field conditions isn't exactly like bench-resting paper targets at the range on a Sunday, which is why I am baffled as to why taxpayers need to be burdened with additional millions of dollars of investments to purchase a new rifle for infanteers (who on average can hardly pass PWT 3 without the RSO faking results) to score theoretical head shots at 600m to content whiny internet ninjas who share an ungodly love affair with 7.62x39 and pistons while the current system does the job better than most soldiers could ever dream of in the first place.
Click to expand...


Well, that pretty much covers it.
 
But but...but they need new guns. How else can we develop more Call of Duty games if they don't have new guns to justify another game?

I enjoy the idea of trying to hit a target 600m away in battlefield conditions with unmagnified optics and standard weight 5.56 bullets. I'd be lucky to hit someone 6 meters away in battlefield conditions. It's why I might never go to the range anywhere near the precision shooters. I'd be happy to even be able to spot a target that far away, let alone nitpick about how microscopic group sizes are essential.
 
yohann160 said:
Now, to reiterate my meaning in even simpler language: taking shots at a target in actual field conditions isn't exactly like bench-resting paper targets at the range on a Sunday, which is why I am baffled as to why taxpayers need to be burdened with additional millions of dollars of investments to purchase a new rifle for infanteers (who on average can hardly pass PWT 3 without the RSO faking results) to score theoretical head shots at 600m to content whiny internet ninjas who share an ungodly love affair with 7.62x39 and pistons while the current system does the job better than most soldiers could ever dream of in the first place.
Click to expand...

You know, yohann160, this is a firearms forum not a high level discussion between international delegates at a peace conference. So why don't you just forget all that fancy namby-pamby diplomatic doubletalk of yours, and tell us in plain English what you really feel about this neverending search for a better rifle and cartridge to replace the infantry's AR platforms and 5.56x45mm rounds? :confused: :p
 
Problem #1. Training And equipment inertia.

Problem #2. Supply chain inertia.

Problem #3. Marginal improvement for effort.


Problem #1.

Training and equipment inerita. The US Military has a *LOT* of money invested in it's current training program, and equipment. How many M-16 FOW weapons does the US have? Answer is a *LOT*, but considering the idea of replacing an entire family of weapons, you have to consider more than just the weapon itself.

The entire training system would have to be re-vamped, the documentation, you'd have to train the trainers to train the rest of the system...and the cost in terms of both time and money for this change would be HUGE.

The "incremental" changes we've noted with piston systems, and fancy cartridges like 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, etc, are all a compromise. The are NOT the idea cartridge...they're simply the best they can do within the limitations of the weapon footprint they have. (Can't be bigger than the current magazine well on an M-16.) This is good in that it means no major changes to the training systems, which means they are a relatively 'cheap' solution.

Problem #2

Supply chain inertia. How many millions of rounds are there in storage? How many spare parts? How many weapons racks? How many vehicle mounts/clips? How many of these things would have to be changed as well if a new weapon was brought into service which was not the same general footprint/layout as the existing M-4/M-16? Using up what's in supply now would probably take years. The manufacturers are well setup for building the M-16FOW right now....how long will it take to re-tool to produce a new platform?

Problem #3

Marginal improvement for effort. Unless there is a huge leap in capability gained, why make this huge investment? Suppose the weapon is 25% more likely to hit...does that make it worthwhile? How about 50%? Only hits count...(well placed hits count more....but...well..whatever.)

Suppose you have a competition, and the best weapon is only 15% more reliable, 25% more accurate. Is it worth spending the billions of dollars to replace it?

And finally, suppose you have a different cartridge...you would have to re-template every single military shooting range in the US. Consider the difference between the M1 and M2 ball ammunition in the 1920's/1930's (ref Hatcher) How many ranges would be closed? How much land might you have to buy or expropriate to expand those ranges?

The systemic inertia to remain with the M-16FOW is huge.

In my opinion, there would have to be a significant increase in the capability of the weapon system to make it worthwhile.


Again, my opinion:

I think the M-16 FOW is a well developed, fairly reliable, fairly accurate weapons system.

I think the 5.56mm round is a reasonable cartridge for the engagements it was designed for (reference the SCHV project.)

Are there better rounds out there? Yes. Is the cost of converting the entire platform worth the benefit? I don't think so for the current 6.5/6.8/etc, perhaps for CT ammo.

I think the best enhancement they could make to the M-16 FOW involves not the weapon, but the sighting system. An optic, with an ability to provide shooter to shooter networking between sightings ystems, enabling target designation and assignment by squad/section leaders, range-finding, Day/Night integration, while still providing a basic optic tube with a cross-hair should all the fancy stuff break would be the way ahead. Sound computer-game-ish? Sure. Probably a pipe-dream....

But add that pipe-dream to a rifle with CT ammo....and that would be a worthwhile increase in the capability of the weapons platform, worth spending the money to make the conversion.

Just my thoughts....flame away.

NS
 
screwtape said:
You know, yohann160, this is a firearms forum not a high level discussion between international delegates at a peace conference. So why don't you just forget all that fancy namby-pamby diplomatic doubletalk of yours, and tell us in plain English what you really feel about this neverending search for a better rifle and cartridge to replace the infantry's AR platforms and 5.56x45mm rounds? :confused: :p
Click to expand...

Hahaha, I thought of this when I read your post.

 
The elephant in the room at this point is what does the U.S. military look like after its no longer able to hit the national credit card and the real cuts come?

I don't think the U.S. can sustainably afford a military of more than $150-200 billion, and at that point you can kiss any major new nonessential procurement projects goodbye for awhile.
 
870P said:
The elephant in the room at this point is what does the U.S. military look like after its no longer able to hit the national credit card and the real cuts come?

I don't think the U.S. can sustainably afford a military of more than $150-200 billion, and at that point you can kiss any major new nonessential procurement projects goodbye for awhile.
Click to expand...

Oh hell, all they have to do is cut a dozen F-35 fighters off their current planned order, and they could afford to re-equip the entire military from top to bottom with whatever fancy customised black rifles their little hearts desired...
 
Considering, this thread has turned out pretty good. Although some bad info was posted some very good info was posted to correct the bad info… Very informative… Thanks Guys… I appreciate reading your insights…
 
KevinB said:
Uhm okay.

http://300aacblackout.com/resources/300-BLK.pdf

Robert Silvers presentation at JSSAS.

Cherry picked data again.

16" .300BK used against 14.5" M4
Click to expand...

Have there been any equivalent comparisons done? Same barrel length, same components where applicable, same tests in same conditions, same testers?

It seems like all the tests I've seen are conducted by different people under different circumstances, never a direct side by side comparison.
 
Don't get me wrong I like .300BK as a round -- however I think is realistically is a 350m round - that is primarily subsonic mission roled, and only rolling to super sonic when one needs to go further than 150m.

I do think
 
Not what I am saying at all -- though I wonder who's paying for all his .300BK ;)

.300BK is NOT a 5.56mm replacement round - its not got the longer range performance, nor do I see a plethora of MG's chambered in it.
Now, it could be possible to introduce .300BK into a system that then incorporated 7.62mm NATO as well, like the previous use of 9mm SMG's and 7.62mm Rifles (or .45 SMG's and 7.62mm Rifles in the US).


To me (again my opinion) the .300BK shines in the 9" barrel length with a suppressor. Add a T1 and you have a 250m weapon. Great for SOF teams and other who want to be covert -- however get out into the open and that gun is going to be a crutch.

The US Army is wanting a 1-6x or 1-8x scope for a common squad optic, as it is finding they need to engage longer and longer.
 
So, it seems to be that they need a 7.62x51 AR. Which already exist, and already have manufacturers, and there are pre-existing military contracts and supply infrastructure for the cartridge, and would be a minimal change in training or handling.

.308 AR, yes? Even do something like equip it on a few members of each squad or unit or ka-tet or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

Up until someone makes a rifle that can discharge variable cartridges, or figures out how to supercharge existing cartridges, or shoot frikken lasers we're always going to run into the issue of small and light cartridges having short effective range, and large cartridges being heavy and take up more space.

Am I crazy, or ill-informed?
 
Stevebot-7 said:
So, it seems to be that they need a 7.62x51 AR. Which already exist, and already have manufacturers, and there are pre-existing military contracts and supply infrastructure for the cartridge, and would be a minimal change in training or handling.

.308 AR, yes? Even do something like equip it on a few members of each squad or unit or ka-tet or whatever they're calling themselves these days.

Up until someone makes a rifle that can discharge variable cartridges, or figures out how to supercharge existing cartridges, or shoot frikken lasers we're always going to run into the issue of small and light cartridges having short effective range, and large cartridges being heavy and take up more space.

Am I crazy, or ill-informed?
Click to expand...

Sounds like reinventing the wheel. The 308/7.62x51 is great for a DM rifle but we've already gone the route of using it as a standard battle rifle round before. The Germans figured it out with the STG44 and the 8mm kurtz and then later the Russians copied them with the AK and 7.62x39. Full auto and quick semi auto controllable shots rather than full rifle cartridges. The 5.56 AR builds off that concept.

While the old timers will sing the praise of the FN FAL a rifle I like by the way, I don't see us going back to that anytime soon. 308, 8mm etc as the Germans found was overkill for most circumstances and a disadvantage. The Germans tested this by dropping STG44 to a division surrounded by Russians. One thing we forget is that the Russians were of the mentality that semi auto battle rifles were to eventually be issued to most of their infantry. The SVT40 (semi auto piston system mag fed rifle) was prolific on the Eastern front. The trapped German division fought their way out with the STG44. The performance advantage in typical combat situations was huge. The Russians took notice and copied it with the AK47.

1:7 twist with heavier 5.56 ammo should do the job. Get the right weight to velocity ratio. Full rifle cartridges such as 308 for DM and snipers. Currently what the US, UK, Canada etc are using. The UK suppliment their squads with a DM using the LMT MWS 308AR.

I don't see the round being the problem. What I would like to see is the most accurate and reliable system to fire this round. Increase the accuracy and you increase your effective range. Especially with modern optics. Again I was hoping something like the ADCOR an improvement over the current rifle while being fairly cheap and easy to impliment compared to a whole new rifle, would be chosen. Especially in modern times where professional armies are going to be smaller and technology doing most of the heavy lifting. Give a soldier a superior weapon along with profesional training and as the Germans showed, those soldiers can take on significantly greater numbers (to a point of course). Economically in a first world country it's also cheaper in the long run to go this route.

Oh and yes, caseless cartridge ammo, lasers, plasma etc would be cool. I hope I live long enough to debate the pros/minus of these. On a side note, anyone else think when watching Star Wars that current modern weapons would smoke their blasters? Seems to me they needed to up their rate of fire on those things! The light sabres well that's another story..

Just my thoughts on this which I fully admit aren't based on the training or experience some posting on here have. My disclaimer as I don't have military training or experience and others on here do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom