And if 5.56mm never existed?

Slowbalt

Slowbalt

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
42   0   2
Back some time.

NATO was testing and researching a new caliber for the standard NATO battle rifle. But as the US decided to go and order many many M-16s, they understood that they would not turn back and change again their rifles, so most of NATO went afield with the M-16/5.56mm.... With the outcome we see now.

So, what do YOU think the NATO would have decided to field?

P.S.1 : Now I know this may not be 100% right on, but to the best of my knowledge, this story is as close as it gets.

P.S.2 : Also, I didn't really know where to place this thread but thought that as it was related to what could have been a very widespread millitary rifle, it belonged with all the rest of mil-spec rifles.
 
Interestingly, as far as I recall and understand, the first FN-FAL was built in 7.92x33mm Kurz....

That would have been an interesting caliber to see carried on....

NS
 
The AR 10 was arguably the best battle rifle the world has ever seen, but at the time, the idea of any BATTLE rifle on FULL AUTO was an ox looking for a moron. So the AR 10 was dead before it really got off the ground.

So, in their wisdom, the US airforce looked to a smaller, lighter, lower powered version ... and the poodle shooter was born.

Now think what could have happened if Eugene had showed Lemay a full sized AR 10 in .243, instead of the AR 15 in .223 Groundhog??


[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Lazerus2000 said:
The AR 10 was arguably the best battle rifle the world has ever seen, but at the time, the idea of any BATTLE rifle on FULL AUTO was an ox looking for a moron. So the AR 10 was dead before it really got off the ground.

So, in their wisdom, the US airforce looked to a smaller, lighter, lower powered version ... and the poodle shooter was born.

Now think what could have happened if Eugene had showed Lemay a full sized AR 10 in .243, instead of the AR 15 in .223 Groundhog??


[;{)
LAZ 1
Click to expand...

On what planet was this then. the AR10 was not exactly the prime example of reliability at the time and was out classed by the FN FAL . The AR10's advantage was that it was cheap and easy to produce.
The full auto battle rifle was quite common M14,FN FAL,BM59 were all successful select fire designs.
 
Thanks for the replies boys ( already got me researching ), but I meant more by this thread : What do YOU think should be in the place of the AR/.223. What do YOU individuals think should have been in the mags of soldiers in Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam, both Gulfs Wars, Afganistan, etc... and in what rifle this mags should have been. ( or maybie do you think that gun was in it's place because ### ). Give your oppinion guys !!!

Also, what do you think should be issued to troops in the future? ( Near future that is...)
 
Last edited:
6.8 SPC seems about right, and the AK is a proven design, so why not a Galil/R4/R5 in 6.8 SPC. That would suit me just fine.
 
The 6.8 seems to be a solution to a platform limitation.

There are many other much better cartridges, however, the 6.8 seems to be about the best of them that can be made to fit and cycle in an AR-15 platform, without modifying the magazine-well size, or making huge changes to the weapon overall.

6.8 is a solution to not being able to afford to change all of your weapons and training doctrine, while still needing improved performance from a short-barreled package.

NS
 
NavyShooter said:
The 6.8 seems to be a solution to a platform limitation.

There are many other much better cartridges, however, the 6.8 seems to be about the best of them that can be made to fit and cycle in an AR-15 platform, without modifying the magazine-well size, or making huge changes to the weapon overall.

6.8 is a solution to not being able to afford to change all of your weapons and training doctrine, while still needing improved performance from a short-barreled package.

NS
Click to expand...

What do you think should replace this platform ?
 
I'm not at the sharp end.

I don't need to have input into that decision Slowbalt.

That said, the current platform (C-7/A1) is quite satisfactory based on my experience.

I understand that there's a lot of guys who carry them in bad places who have some comments, and I'll let them add them as required, if they wish to.

Any comments I'd make on what should replace it would be "out of my lane."

NavyShooter
 
Reaper,
not trying to start a flame war here,
just some "stimulating dialog",
right?

The original question was about second guessing history ...
what if?
Would have/could have/should have?

And in my posting, I said the AR 10 was "arguably" the best ... so let's argue.
[;{)

"The full auto battle rifle was quite common M14, FN FAL, BM59 were all successful select fire designs." .
Successful??
Successful at what?

I personally feel that FA in a "Battle" rifle, confuses the tactical roles of the "battle"and the "assault" rifle ... but hey, all my training in this area is decades out of date, and I'm always open to someone with more current information or experience changing my mind.

I have personally thrown a few rounds of 7.62 NATO ball downrange on R&R from the M-14, the AR-10, and the FN C1, and a few others, and I assume you have too. On Fast Forward with an AR 10, M-14, and FN C1, I used to be able to keep SHORT= 3 to 5 rd bursts on a SIL @ 100 yds from prone or @ 25 yds from various "assault" positions. However, I weigh well over 200 lbs, and I used to practice a lot. In my experience, due to the inherent advantages of the straight line stock and heavy buffer, the AR 10 was the best of the full powered Battle rifles at Fast Forward,

While it is demonstratably possible for an experienced operator to use a full powered battle rifle on R&R, I think you will agree that for most soldiers, this tactical role is better served by one of the less powerful "assault" rifles?
YES/NO?

"On what planet was this then. the AR10 was not exactly the prime example of reliability at the time"

I've owned/stripped/rebuilt dozens of the OLD AR 10 and shot thousands of 7.62 NATO ball rounds through AR 10 rifles that had seen service in Africa = less than perfect maintenance ... eg: "piss down the barrels once a month if they remembered". Only ONE of these was not totally functional after a detail cleaning and inspection, and that one had been dry fired without a bolt until the hammer beat a notch into the magazine web. Other than the fragile aluminum mags, I NEVER had any reliability or durability issue with an original AR 10. OOPS ... I nearl forgot, some of the original AR 10 Plastic/Glass handguards and/or buttstocks were beat up considerably, but this did not actually stop the AR 10s from functioning. And the handguards could be retrofitted with AR 15 parts with just a bit of effort.

Are you basing your opinions about AR-10 reliability on the original US trials, where the prototype Armalite AR-10 burst an experimental alloy wrapped/steel insert barrel? The AI built AR-10s were improved considerably over the original Armalite built AR-10 prototypes, and both the Sudanese [ non-gas adjustable ] and the Portuguese [ upgraded with an FN like adjustable gas regulator ] AR 10s were as reliable as any of the other battle rifles of the time.

However, Armalite and AI were pissing into the wind, because the FN FAL design had pretty well wrapped up the free world military market. Not necessarily because the FN was a better design ... as we all know, better is not alwayus or even often the main criteria for choosing military equipment.

I think an ORIGINAL AR-10 in .243 Win would have been a great idea, and maybe still is, but I guess I'm in the minority. Now we have all those AR-15 caliber "upgrades" [ 6.8 /6.5 ... yadayadayada ] trying to achieve what an AR 10 in .243 would have done in the first place.

This is what I think NATO should have gone with then, and maybe even NOW.
LAZ 1
 
I think for a potential SHTF/Looting spree/Zombie occurrence the 5.56mm will do just fine.

Everything else is just trying to squeeze more footpounds out of the newer better sales-pitched-rifle/cartridge. If it works for you then go with it.

22LR FTW :D
 
Does the average infantryman of today and tomorrow actually require a battle rifle instead of an assault rifle?

Apparently, soldiers in the various sandboxes of the world, are finding out that there is a valuable role for a long reaching "designated rifleman", to support the CQB/assault rifle teams. Not exactly snipers, but more than common infantryman. But this role should be reserved for those rifleman who can demonstrate that they can actually hit something further away than the usual CQB ranges. And this "battle" rifle, with the more powerful cartridge, would be the exception rather than the norm. In the present, and in the future, the designated rifleman will be in the minority ... as valuable as that minority might be in certain tactical scenarios.

So the good old traditional "battle" rifle is basically a dead end ...
left behind by more modern solutions to evolutionery pressures.

So, arguably, most soldiers today and in the future, will be using firearms optimised for CQB or "assault".

I suspect the debate over which cartridge would do best out of the AR 15 platform will go on for a long time. 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 Rem are both attempts to maximise some component of terminal ballistics while staying within the power/size/shape requirements of the 15 platform.

Personally, I've always considered an AR 15 shorty, to be the close to ideal CQB weapon, but for CQB terminal ballistics, bigger is usually better. In CQB the 7.62 X 39 Russian round has possibly killed more human beans than most other calibers, so this is the standard all others are judged by. An AR 15 in 7.62X39 is possible, but unless you make it to take AK mags, the system is limited to short or unreliable mags.

While I've always coveted an AR 15 in 7.62X39, my personal solution was to build a 16" AR 15 in .300 Whisper. In the books, .300 Whisper loaded with 125 - 130 gr bullets duplicates 7.62X39 ballistics, and when you go up to heavier bullets, the .300 Whisper is far superior at short ranges.

Of course, you could always load heavier .303 British bullets into 7.62X39 cases, and duplicate .300 Whisper ballistics, probably cheaper too.

So maybe we should be looking at a Tavor or some other hi tech bull pup, set up in 7.62X39, as the ultimate future CQB weapon?
of course,
YMMV
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
I think optics helped out the 5.56 M16 platform considerably, so it is still workable. Terminal performance of 6.x FMJ would depend on the bullet construction, no guarantee that it would wound better. A heavier bullet would be less affected by wind, but we have to reduce velocity to keep full auto recoil the same. So it is all a matter of swings and roundabouts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom