PDA

View Full Version : XM8 VS. M16/M4 and 5.56 VS. 6.8SPC what's next...?


M4A3
March 27, 2005, 10:14 AM
This thing is going to replace the M16 and M4? :confused: You gotta be kidden me... :rolleyes:

Full page: HERE (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as61-e.htm)

http://world.guns.ru/assault/xm8-ar.jpg
XM8 rifle in "automatic rifle" (light machine gun) configuration. Note longer barrel and folded bipods under the forearm :rolleyes:

How could this thing, even on it's best day play the role of a "light machine gun" up agesnt a SAW, or an M60E4 for example.

Is this just another one of those "lets waist the tax payers money" guns? Then toss it on the shelf, and go back to the M16 like in the past.

It said:

The XM8 (M8 after its official adoption) should become a standard next generation US forces assault rifle. It will fire all standard 5.56mm NATO ammunition, and, to further decrease the load on the future infantrymen, a new type of 5.56mm ammunition is now being developed.

What the heck happend to the 6.8 now? I thought that was the next "best" thing since the 556 was such a poor cartrage. (wich it pure BS)

Could any one enlighten me with some true facts? Why fix what works?

I think getting rid of the M855 is a good idea. That cartrage sems to stay together too well at longer ranges. Other than that, keep the m16/m4.

Mike F.
March 27, 2005, 11:14 AM
From what little I've read the XM8 is NOT capable of meeting the Army's criteria of replacing the venerable M-249 SAW. Therefore H&K will either have to develope a light machine gun variant or be knocked out of the competition to replace the current weapon system family.

Semper Fi,
Mike F.

themikeman
March 27, 2005, 12:21 PM
I would feel like a tallywacker carrying that POS.

Crosshair
March 27, 2005, 12:43 PM
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

The M-14 Was soposed to replace the M-1 Garand, the BAR, and the M3 grease gun. All it did was replace the Garand. We are trying to do the same thing with the XM-8 The only difference is that our *rifle* will basicly be a submachinegun with one h:)ll of a muzzle flash. :(

As for different rounds.

5.56<7.62x39<6.8 SPC

Drue
March 27, 2005, 02:01 PM
I have never seen or handled an XM8 but, IMHO, the XM8 is a bureaucratic brain fart. The DOD spent millions on the OICW and it did not work out. So, to "salvage the program", let's take the personal defense thingy hanging on the front end, add a buttstock and bingo the "perfect" general issue rifle. There are issues with the M885 ammo in the 14.5" barrel of the M4 so let's go one better and use a 12.5" barrel etc. If the XM8 was all that great, the Army would not be starting new trials.

The idea that one weapon system can cover everything from a PWD through a carbine and rifle and on to a SAW sounds great but, in reality, it has never worked. The Stoner sounded like a good idea and the LMG was put to good use by the SEALS in Vietnam but the rifle and carbine were too heavy. The M14 has been already mentioned in this thread. It was a great rifle but a very poor SAW. The Israelis were all excited about the Gall and the fact that it could be used as a LMG but the rifle was too heavy. The AKM and AK74 are great rifles and the Krinkov is a great PDW but the RPK and RPK74 have serious limitations as a SAW or LMG since they are not belt fed and do not have quick change barrels.

If somebody can figure it out, more power to them but the differing requirements seem to preclude one weapon that can do it all.

Drue

Mike F.
March 28, 2005, 05:18 PM
Drue, I think your assessment of the situation is spot on. They could have saved themselves 28 million dollars if they'd have let the Marines field test the XM8 first. It would have been returned in pieces, some of which would be unrecognizable slag. It also seems like they Army is having a tough time re-inventing the wheel. Nothing truly revolutionary is being offered (so far at least).

Semper Fi,
Mike F.

cheygriz
March 28, 2005, 10:09 PM
there ar two things you can count on.

1. The M-16 family, M-4 etc will not be replaced in the next 20 years.

2. The 5.56X45 MM round will not be replaced in the next 30 years.

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 07:56 AM
actually i disagree that the m16 family won't be replaced in the next 20 years. it definatly will be. The xm8 is a decent concept, although why they made it strictly out of polymers i have no idea.

I've read account after account of US soldier's in the middle east using captured ak47s while on patrol, and some of the special forces guys using them strictly all together.

Personally i think that they (and some law enforcement personell are) should look at a .308 variant. like armalite's ar10 series. Hell even the .300 featured in this month's special weapons for military and law enforcement would be a good canadate.

5.56 just doesn't have the ballistics that they are looking for out of a 14-16 inch barrel.

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 09:25 AM
FN SCAR- make them all .308 and you've got yourself a great battle rifle.

Mike F.
March 30, 2005, 04:40 PM
In all fairness, it's really the current military ball ammo in .223 that has the major deficiency, not the weapon family itself. The SAW is the current exception and needs a good re-working.

Semper Fi,
Mike F.

Crosshair
March 30, 2005, 04:48 PM
Mike F. What is wrong about the SAW? You are talking about the M249, right. I agree that the M16 series of weapon would be much better if we simply got a better rount into it. Though I have heard that many of the 249's are simply worn out. I would like to hear more of you're experience with them.

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 07:37 PM
Umm, I think this weapon will be MUCH better for basicly any type of combat than the M4, due to the reliability issue, although I do agree it should have been chambered in 6.8. Weather we want to admit it or not, the stoner design is flawed. It craps where it eats, uses a dinky gas tube, and has tolerances to tight for a combat rifle. I own the M4 and like it for plinking and such, but lets face it, the Ak will always trump it on reliability. Now what I think would be the better solution to getting all new rifles would be to make a new upper for the M4 chambered in 6.8, that uses a gas piston instead of tube, and open up the tolerances a little. I think that would save a bundle of cash, but I may be wrong. To say that the xm-8 is a pos though is just wrong. I've read a lot of the reviews and seen many videos of the xm-8 and it trumps the m4 in every aspect.It's stronger, more user friendly, more efficiant. Sorry to tell all the M4 die-hards, but it will more than likely be the next combat rifle.

Warbow
March 30, 2005, 08:09 PM
Might want to read (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158495&highlight=xm-8) what the guys who would be trading their M-16s and M-4s in think about it before making those claims, Rooftop voter. :)

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 08:31 PM
I've read a lot of about it from the people who are using it.Most seems to be positive, I'd say it's doing much better in the testing and evaluation phase than the m-16 familiy of weapons ever did. They are correcting any problems that it's running into. That's why it's the Xm-8 and not the M-8. :)

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 09:29 PM
Say goodbye to the XM8, its old news (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=648)

Yep its the SCAR.

5.56 x45
http://world.guns.ru/assault/scar_l-1.jpg
and my favorite 7.62 x 51 and oh lookie, it takes FAL mags :D
http://world.guns.ru/assault/scar_h.jpg

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 09:46 PM
but it looks far from dead. It also says it's a rumor.

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:03 PM
haven't heard much about the scar, but the one article i did read on it, it seems like it was pretty decent.

also... if the xm8 is the shiznit, why aren't the marines using it?

:edit:
just realized the pictures that were posted. the scar apparently is going to come in the same caliber as the xm8.....

hope they decide on the 7.62 over the 5.56

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:04 PM
Dust and water (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_dust.php) M203s are for chumps (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_grenade.php) Takedown made EASY (http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-xm8_assembly.php)


Anyone find a vid of an M4 doing this? Note the sand and water blowing out the barrel at the beggining of each session. :)

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:12 PM
why would you want an M4 to do any of that? the m4 is for all intents and purposes an entry weapon. Don't get me wrong, I would take it into combat... but only if it was the only weapon available to me. The 5.56 was originally designed to be fired out of a 20"-24" barrel. You just get better ballistics out of it. honestly, that's a characteristic of pretty much any ammo out there. The shorter the barrel, the shorter the effective distance/punch power.

take a 18" shotgun for example... would you take it turkey hunting? no? why not? because you wouldn't be able to hit your target.

I have considered an m4 for the longest time, but after reading ballistics reports, and field reports on it, a 20" weapon is definatly what i'm going after. and the military should stick with the longer barreled stuff as well. I mean hell, the design worked well enough (not perfectly) in vietnam....

and i'm not trying to compare vietnam era m16's to the same era ak47 that the enemy was using either...

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:19 PM
The marines may not have as big a budget as the Army. Didn't the marines back in 'nam still have thier m-14s when the Army switched to the m-16? I'm not sure though.

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:21 PM
the point is, if i were trying to develop a weapon for today's military, i would at least give a dozen or so to the marines, to see how quickly they broke it.

there is a plain and simple fact that my best friend trained me on:
the marines are a ground taking force
the army is a ground keeping force

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:23 PM
The reason they may be shortining the barrels is because the ranges that we are fighting are getting closer. No reason to have longer barrels when most of your gunfights are CQB or withhin 100 meters.Yes, I think they should have gone with the 6.8,but hey, they didn't. With the xm-8 if the battles start getting longer in distance at anytime, they can easily swap out barrels, unlike with the m4.

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:25 PM
Yeah, The marines are so much tougher that they'll easily break it, unlike the puny Army. :rolleyes:

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 10:27 PM
With the xm-8 if the battles start getting longer in distance at anytime, they can easily swap out barrels, unlike with the m4

or we can just go back to 7.62NATO like we should have.

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:27 PM
point.

counter point:
the xm8 is supposed to be lighter than the m4/m16 right? so why wiegh the soldier down by making him carry another barrel?

and besides, so what if you have a 20" barrel in a 100m combat situation, that could turn into a 300m combat situation. that just means the bullet hits them that much harder.

and then you run into the time it takes to change out the barrel... in a combat situation.....

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:29 PM
i feel like such a nerd....

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:34 PM
I didn't mean for soilders to carry 3 or 4 different barrels. If later on you needed to change it out if, lets say we pulled out of Iraq and invaded some other country where the battles where taking place at longer distances. You could change the barrel to adjust to mission specifics. Yes I agree we should have kept the 7.62 Nato. What happens if that 300m battle turns into a 600 meter battle and so fourth. The situations are endless. But if it were me, I would call artie on thier positions and let the king of battle take care of it.

SunBear
March 30, 2005, 10:34 PM
FN is running fullpage ads bragging on the triumph of their SCAR which is for SpecOps :p and soon available in 6.8mm (I hear). Where do I sign? :D

The M-8 when it arrives will be 5.56mm but launching heavier (77+gr), more frangible bullets. :cool:

jailbait
March 30, 2005, 10:37 PM
Personally this is what i would do if i were in charge:
demand a refund on the 9 billion dollars we've spent on the xm8 so far, replace all the 14" barrels with 20" barrels, and go to a heavier grained, frangible ammunition.

i'm not going to comment on the scar, cause i don't know jack about it. looks tight though. i'll buy one if they ever civy it up for us.

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 10:40 PM
Yes I agree we should have kept the 7.62 Nato. What happens if that 300m battle turns into a 600 meter battle and so fourth. The situations are endless. But if it were me, I would call artie on thier positions and let the king of battle take care of it.

Artillery or air strikes is always the preferred choice if available. Khafji did not afford either of that available to our Marines. They still did a fine job and no I don't think a change to 7.62 would have had any dramatic effect. I was thinking more in terms of penetrating fire as in being able to shoot through cover as well as the improved stopping power as afforded by the 7.62N. Not to mention its an already established round without the need for any extra hoopla by necking down a .270. Although the ballistics from a 6.8mm do look promising.

Jailbait here is a link to the FN SCAR, and all other guns of goodness (http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm)

As for the Army Marines deal, from what I've seen first hand the avg Marine takes care of their rifle likes its their son or daughter. Note not intended to be a slight against the Army guys at all. The Army guys are much rougher on their equipment being more numerous and more widely available. Just my personal observation.

SunBear
March 30, 2005, 10:48 PM
Speaking of tired cliches:
"there is a plain and simple fact that my best friend trained me on:
the marines are a ground taking force
the army is a ground keeping force"

Wish the Army had been available to liberate Europe in WWl and WWll, Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to all you Marines for all you've done! :)

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 10:50 PM
Wish the Army had been available to liberate Europe in WWl and WWll, Korea, Viet Nam, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq. Thanks to all you Marines for all you've done!

From the Halls of the Reichstag....to the shores of Anzio........They will fight our countries battles... ;)

Rooftop voter
March 30, 2005, 10:56 PM
Well it's a good thing your not in charge. Everyone hates new rifles. In another 40 years when the next rifle is gonna come out, people will be bitching about how the M-8 was bad ass and this new fangled rifle looks like a toy. It happend from M1 to m-14 and from m-14 to m-16. I guess it's just the way things are.

The Body Bagger
March 30, 2005, 11:06 PM
never said I wanted to be, just what I prefer. And if I was in charge I'd have everyone line up in Legions and storm the enemy with short swords, and God forbid should we fail or members falter, the call for decimation would go out.........

IZinterrogator
March 31, 2005, 09:04 AM
Replace all M16A2s with M16A4s. Give everyone some type of optical advantage (ACOG, EOTech, etc.). Only give M4s to those who have a tactical necessity for a short barrel (building clearing teams, etc.). Too many people want the ballistically-inferior M4 just because "it's not in the way as much". Since the M4 folks left have a ballistically-inferior rifle, give them those blended metal bullets that shred the insides of people they hit. Upgrade the M855/M856 combo to the Mk 262 Mod 1 and a ballistically-matched tracer. Cheap fix, but pretty effective.

cheygriz
March 31, 2005, 01:33 PM
hehehehe,

No matter how much "Little Jeffie" Cooper and the other 19th century dinos rant, the .45-70 aint comin' back! And neither is the .30-40 Krag, the .30-06, the .308, or any other long, heavy "pumpkin rollers." They're obsolete in todays military.

The .45 ACP isn't coming back either. (But PLEASE, don't tell Jeffie! It would break his heart!) :D

Mike F.
March 31, 2005, 04:55 PM
CrossHair- I have nothing against the SAW as weapons platform. The problem with it, as a system, is that almost all of them are WAY past their useful service life. For the record I have carried, ran, fired, and marched (humped for all you Leathernecks out there) with one while serving as an 0311 in the Marines. If you had one that worked well life was great, otherwise you spent most of your time clearing a jam due to worn components as opposed to firing and manuevering.

As a side note, it's primarily finding a new Squad Automatic Weapon the Army seems to be interested in. It has pretty much been said that if budgetary constraints only allow ONE system to be replaced, it will be the M-249. It is also the weapon that has to have the least amount of compatible parts with the other proposed designs and therefore allows the greatest amount of leeway with the overall design.

I have utmost respect for anyone choosing to serve our country, no matter what service. However, there are some truths about the Marine Corps. They do more for less, in fact the ENTIRE Marine Corps is roughly about 10% of the Navy's entire budget. Marine training and overall mentality is significantly more Warrior oriented. What I mean by this is that every Marine is trained as a rifleman first and some other MOS secondly. And finally, there is a reason the Marines are called upon (as an entire service) to do the dirtiest jobs. If all the Marines had were sharp sticks they'd still assault the beach and kill the enemy with them :)

Semper Fi,
Mike F.

jailbait
March 31, 2005, 09:05 PM
"hehehehe,

No matter how much "Little Jeffie" Cooper and the other 19th century dinos rant, the .45-70 aint comin' back! And neither is the .30-40 Krag, the .30-06, the .308, or any other long, heavy "pumpkin rollers." They're obsolete in todays military.

The .45 ACP isn't coming back either. (But PLEASE, don't tell Jeffie! It would break his heart!)"

what the hell? .30-06 and .308 "19th century dinos?" those are two great rounds, neither of which are dead. the .308 is actually making a come back. armalite, remington and a few others (all foriegn) are trying to make more variations......

The Body Bagger
March 31, 2005, 09:18 PM
and not to mention the .308 (current in service M240's & M14's) has never left nor is it from the 19th century, but to each their own. You know its funny that Bushmaster and DPMS both this past year have started producing 7.62x51 chambered rifles.

M4A3
March 31, 2005, 10:50 PM
Don't you think you're more combat effective with 280 rounds of 5.56 as opposed to 100-120 rounds of 7.62? I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.

Fact: With in fragmentation range, the 5.56mm bullet causes MORE extensive tissue damage than the 7.62 / .308.

Mike F.
March 31, 2005, 11:12 PM
FACT: If the Bad Guy is behind cover, in heavy brush, etc. etc. *I'd* rather have a heavier bullet.

The whole argument is rather moot though, irregardless of the round we are firing, we are going to keep shooting and moving until they are very dead :)

Semper Fi,
Mike F.

M4A3
March 31, 2005, 11:32 PM
FACT: If the Bad Guy is behind cover, in heavy brush, etc. etc. *I'd* rather have a heavier bullet.

So you're saying you are going to empty you're rifle mag into this cover, or brush the tango is in, or hiding behind in hopes of hitting him? I hope you want cary alot of ammo, because you're going to run out of ammo real fast fighting like that.

cheygriz
April 1, 2005, 12:36 AM
M4A3,

You can't confuse "cooperites" with facts. To them, the .45 ACP and the 7.62X51 are "magical' star trek death rays!

God forbid that our military should use a weapon or cartridge designed after 1950! They all know that there have been no advances in weapon or cartridge design since the Korean war!

It really surprises me that the 7.62/.45 crowd isn't raising hell with the air force for using jets! I mean, after all, wasn't the Sopwith Camel the greatest warplane ever devised? Isn't it better than those dadburn newfangled F-16s and A-10s?

M4A3
April 1, 2005, 01:54 AM
http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/armed/Laser_anim.gif

MTMilitiaman
April 1, 2005, 02:48 AM
Don't you think you're more combat effective with 280 rounds of 5.56 as opposed to 100-120 rounds of 7.62? I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.

Fact: With in fragmentation range, the 5.56mm bullet causes MORE extensive tissue damage than the 7.62 / .308.

FACT: That's a function of bullet design and not an inheriant characteristic of a cartridge or weapons flatform. I love it when people say the 5.56 is more effective than the 7.62mm and the 5.45 is a deathray compared to the "obsolete" 7.62x39 when the only explanation for their effectiveness is that their lack of effectiveness with traditional ammunition forced the design and creation of more fragible ammunition. If you apply this same technology to the 7.62mms they instantly become much more formiddible than any of the .22 caliber centerfires. In fact, I understand the the West German 7.62x51 was actually designed like and performs similar to the M193 ball ammo of the 5.56, only with larger and more dramatic wounds and the Chinese developed an ammunition for the 7.62x39 using a similar concept from the 5.45x39 except with low density plastic beads in the nose. Mr. Kalishnikov himself is quoted as saying he was adamently opposed to the 5.45mm abortion that they turned his rifle into, though he was all for modernizing the 7.62x39.
One disadvantage of the 5.56 and 5.45 is that they run contradictory to their stated mission. They were supposedly developed for lightweight, handy rifles suitable to combine SMG-automatic fire with an effective engagement range of about 300 yards. However, being only .22 caliber, they are heavily dependent on velocity over bullet mass or diameter for their effectiveness, and this virtually requires a longer barrel. You can only do so much with bullet design and our current technology. So you can put a longer barrel on it to get more velocity, but you lose the handiness of the rifle. The only thing you have left seperating it from a battle rifle is automatic fire and less power. Stunt the former with a 3-shot burst mechanism and you mine as well go with the latter and simply adopt a battle rifle. In other words, if you're going to deal with a 20-inched barreled rifle that lacks the capability of automatic fire as originally stated for the intent behind the conception of the assault rifle, you would be better off going with a 20-inch barreled 7.62mm.

Now, that doesn't mean I want to see us go back to the 7.62mm either. I would maybe retain it for LMG use but that is about it. But I am really not to entused about the 5.56mm, having used it on animals larger than I should have and seen the results. Multiple studies have been conducted into the matter over the past 60 years or so and all have concluded pretty much the same thing--about the ideal caliber for combined external and terminal ballistics with attention paid to recoil and ammunition weight is around 7mm. That is why we saw the original Garands in .276 Peaderson, why the British developed their Enfield (M43?) bullpup around a 7mm cartridge and pushed for its standardization by NATO, and why the 6.8 SPC was developed at .277 caliber. I feel eventually the theory of probability states that the politicians will get something right and zero in on a happy medium in the matter by adopting something with more "oomph" than the 5.56 and less ammunition weight and recoil than the 7.62mm. Hell, you'd think eventually they'd do it just by accident.

As for the M16, I don't know how much experience you consider legitimate, but my brother hates the f-ing thing. He's only in AIT right now and despises it. Maybe he was just spoiled by his $300 Romananian AK-clone but his letters home indicate that he is not happy with his issued M16. In fact, he recently steered me away from the Bushmaster Varminter I was considering in favor of "anything but an AR." With all due respect to you fine people out there, I actually know my brother. He is mechanically minded, anal about weapon maintence, and has been around firearms his entire life. I value his opinion. If he tells me that not only has there got to be something better than the M16, but that nearly anything would be better, I am inclined to believe him. So even if it looks like something off of HALO, I bet he'd be willing to give the XM-8 a try.

Crosshair
April 1, 2005, 03:15 AM
Very well said MTMilitiaman. As many know, the fragmentation effect is simply a side effect of the light bullet construction. Apply that same construction to a 7.62 and you get the same results.

Drue
April 1, 2005, 03:56 AM
According to the AR15.com Ammo Oracle


http://www.ammo-oracle.com/


M855 ammo falls below 2700fps, the frag threshold, at 45 to 50M when fired from the 14.5" M4. That's not very far.


Drue

jailbait
April 1, 2005, 07:44 AM
cheygirl said:
"You can't confuse "cooperites" with facts. To them, the .45 ACP and the 7.62X51 are "magical' star trek death rays!

God forbid that our military should use a weapon or cartridge designed after 1950! They all know that there have been no advances in weapon or cartridge design since the Korean war!

It really surprises me that the 7.62/.45 crowd isn't raising hell with the air force for using jets! I mean, after all, wasn't the Sopwith Camel the greatest warplane ever devised? Isn't it better than those dadburn newfangled F-16s and A-10s?"


So if there haven't been any advances in weapon or cartidge design since the korean war, what are the berretta storm, xm8, the 6.68spc, scar weapons, and more and more and more? are they ficticious?

and the reason the 7.62 is used by almost every other country but us... is because it is a SUPERIOR round. and why change something when it doesn't need to be changed. there really aren't any inherient flaws with the 7.62 like there are with the 5.56. The 5.56 has to many variations out there, and unfortunatly the military is using one of the worse ones.

and when it comes to carrying 200 rounds of 5.56 compared to 100 rounds of 7.62.... if i can kill them quicker with less bullets... hell yeah i'd rather carry it. if it takes me 200 rounds to kill the enemy then i'm doing something wrong.

The Body Bagger
April 1, 2005, 09:51 AM
I shure do, and so did the people that implemented the M16 system.

You may want to research on how the M16 was implemented into our armed forces. Keyword McNamara. BTW For the last time, I do not dislike the AR platform, I own one, and served with one. I PREFER 7.62NATO for all the reasons given above by those are knowledgable in these areas. I suggest you do some more research in your quest to label the 5.56 as the do all round. Good round? Sure, but nothing is the golden BB.

CheyGriz- Get a life, no one likes the sideline male cheerleaders. If your going to get into the game, come with some half way inteligible comments, otherwise keep quiet.

M4A3
April 1, 2005, 10:17 AM
You may want to research on how the M16 was implemented into our armed forces.

I have. I even have doc vidio's on it. It wasnt just McNamara, and his group. Alot of people felt this would be a better weapon than the M14. All the M14 could replace was the Grand. An average soldier with basic infentry training cant handle the recoil of the M14 on full auto.

Also, the standard combat munitions load can be increased when carying smaller lighter cartrages. This was another good point with the M16/AR-15 system.

Somone did bring up a possable valid point about the M855, and it's ballistics. I've read both ways. If you look at a ballistics chart you will see that the M855 doesnt fragment much beond 50-70M or so (14.5"). On the other hand I've read about soldiers saying the M855 does just fine at longer ranges. I just dont know. I use M193 in my M4. I think maby this summer I'll do some testing with the M855 and find out my self... Too much here say.

Ok, here's a question. If the M14 / 7.62 system is better. Why did the US Govt. choose to go with the AR-15?

The Body Bagger
April 1, 2005, 10:39 AM
I use M193 in my M4

Hey me too! As for the question of the M16 over the M14, you're asking the wrong guy. I prefer the AR system hands down over the M14, just not the round.

cheygriz
April 1, 2005, 01:40 PM
It seems to me that the dinosaurs of the .45/7.62 crowd are the male cheerleaders on the sideline here! They are the ones that keep spouting "The Gospel According To Jeffie Cooper." Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what writers in gun magazines tell you to think.

As far as "every country but the U.S. usong the 7.62 NATO??

WOW! Try to name one single MAJOR military power that issues the 7.62 as it's primary military rifle? And I don't mean el salvador or Turkey or Rwanda. Just name one single major power that does!

There isn't a single one. None! Nada!! Even the Russians have given up on the old time pumpkin rollers.

Handy
April 1, 2005, 02:07 PM
Someone made a statement that 7.62 would act just like .223 with a similar bullet design.

I disagree. .223 gets its bizarre effectiveness because of its high velocity. The bullets tumble and even break on impact because of the severe forces on the small round as it rapidly decelerates.

The 7.62 starts slower and slows down much less quickly - which is exactly why it is a good penetrator.


.30 rounds were considered obsolete by military ballistic experts long before the Garand came along. It has been kept alive by those who "know better", like some of the posters on this thread.


.223 isn't perfect, but its effectiveness is hard to discount in light of its battlefield accuracy, controllability and light weight. It really does work out of all proportion to its size, and that size is a very big deal to those who must carry and shoot it.

The Body Bagger
April 1, 2005, 04:35 PM
It seems to me that the dinosaurs of the .45/7.62 crowd are the male cheerleaders on the sideline here! They are the ones that keep spouting "The Gospel According To Jeffie Cooper." Try thinking for yourself instead of regurgitating what writers in gun magazines tell you to think.

Since this part was directed at me. How about you providing some insight on why you are even talking? All you are doing as I stated before is sideline cheerleading...."Jeff Cooper dinasaur this, what he said that" Think I'm a Jeff Cooper advocate? I'd take a .357magnum over a .45acp any day of the week pal. Try something else your childish diatribe has far lost any humor you were trying to intend.

.30 rounds were considered obsolete by military ballistic experts long before the Garand came along. It has been kept alive by those who "know better", like some of the posters on this thread.

And there is no need for penetration is there? Not in squad automatic weapons nor mobile vehicle mounted light machine guns right? I don't recall hearing too many complaints of the 30-06 failing to stop the opposition during ww2 or Korea do you? Have you read Blackhawk down? Off the top of my head I remember distinctly reading that no one questioned the old M14 being lugged around by Sgt Shughart because "when it hit, the skinnies stayed down." Opposite of everything else we've heard/read of their less than stellar performace of the M855's. We have all seen multiple reports from both sides in regards to the 556. Why is that? You really really believe that everyone who reports to contrary of what you beleive is lying for the hell of it? In theory the 5.56 is a winner. In reality its a mix match especially the 62gr M855's out of 14.5" barrels. And in this game, its reality that counts.

Handy
April 1, 2005, 05:24 PM
In reality, those who are CURRENTLY in combat on this board like the rifle and the round. I don't know who you're speaking for, exactly.I don't recall hearing too many complaints of the 30-06 failing to stop the opposition during ww2 or Korea do you? Yes, I do. No round is 100% effective. But do YOU recall the Marshall report and reports from Vietnam that demonstrated that .223 actually inspired more soldiers to return fire than ever before?

No doubt .308 is great for machineguns and snipers. But the needs of an infantryman are a constant compromise between weight and effectiveness. .223 IS a compromise - but a really good one. It increases hit probability, increases the likelihood of soldiers returning fire and offers more rounds to be carried. You can't make the same argument with .308, even if it might be better on a per shot basis.


In any case, didn't Randy Shughart die because he eventually ran out of ammo? Would he have been effective longer with the same weight in .223 rifle and ammo? (Apologies if I'm getting the players confused.)


What really gets me with Shughart and his M14 is that everyone brings that up like "the wise and knowledgeable Delta member carried a .308", while completely ignoring what all the other "wise and knowledgeable" Delta guys had. Oh yeah, .223s. ;)

MTMilitiaman
April 1, 2005, 06:26 PM
And judging strictly from Blackhawk Down they weren't too keen on the 5.56's ability to put enemy soldiers down for good, especially when they were high on kaht and thought they were invincible. IIRC, Gordon ran out of ammo pretty fast too. If you want to judge the effectiveness of a round based on a single incident, then it should also be noted that the guy with the M16 died first. I know several people who have been to Iraq or Afghanistan, and the only ones with anything positive to say about the M16 or the 5.56mm as a combat weapon/round are those with little or no experience with anything else. Nearly all the Montana boys that I know that grew up with firearms think pretty poorly of the M16 and the 5.56mm.

And I will respectfully disagree with your evaluation of the 7.62mm. It may always have more penetration than the 5.56, but it can be made to expand rapidly and tumble in a manner than cause damage far more excessive than the 5.56mm. This is why we see specialty rounds like Hornady's 110 gr TAP loading for law enforcement and personal defense applications requiring limited penetration. That said, I realize that players such as General MacArthur (McArthur?) have kept the .30 caliber in play much longer than necessary or even beneficial. I am not saying the 7.62x51 is an end all solution to any problems the military may or may not be experiencing with the current service rifle and load. I think I would rather have the 7.62mm if given a choice between the two, but then, as I said before, I feel a better alternative to either would be something along the lines of the 6.8mm--a "happy medium" of around 7mm that offers more power than the 5.56 and less recoil and ammunition weight than the 7.62mm.

The Body Bagger
April 1, 2005, 06:34 PM
No one forgot about what the other Delta members had, and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. The other Delta members were impressed in the scene being played out before them. The .308 when it hit did not require any follow ups. There were multiple reports that stemmed from 93 that led to the search for a better performing round. Unfortunately it has not come about but has led to researching in the 6.8mm. If there wasn't a problem with the round, why the research to find another?

If the Marshal report is based solely on the weapons platform, what has changed from Vietnam to the Modern Era to increase the return fire/small arms combat effeciency yet another ten fold? Nothing. Its the training that has evolved.

You're right the 5.56 is easier to shoot for 99% of the people out there. That is not the case I was trying to make. I admitted as much in the AR vs M1A thread. The efficiency of the round is the problem. Varying bullet weights and barrel twists again and again to find any solution to gain solid performance.

BTW both Shugart and Gordon both ran out of ammo.

Handy
April 1, 2005, 06:36 PM
but it can be made to expand rapidly How is this pertinent to a discussion of a military round? I was speaking of rounds we actually could issue, being some sort of ball. For closed tip bullets, the bullet is more likely to do something odd on impact if it is light and fast.


I wasn't aware country boys in Montana had alot of experience shooting people. I thought it was more of elk and sheep hunting state.



What I find so interesting is that the current bandwagon is for a more intermediate round - closer to the .276 of the orginal Garand or the .280 the British designed. Yet 15 years ago several countries were eyeing the 4.7mm high speed stuff. This was right after the Soviets dumped their intermediate 7.62x39 round.

So not only has .223 been a mistake, but one that convinced alot of smart people to make the same or greater mistake? Color me skeptical.

jailbait
April 1, 2005, 06:36 PM
cheygirl... i gotta ask

have you shot both the 5.56 and the 7.62? and if you have, have you shot it at anything other than paper? Ie: steel targets, wood targets, or hell... even in combat?

Handy
April 1, 2005, 06:40 PM
If the Marshal report is based solely on the weapons platform, what has changed from Vietnam to the Modern Era to increase the return fire/small arms combat effeciency yet another ten fold? Nothing. Its the training that has evolved. Good question. The only thing that changed between WWII and Vietnam was the rifle. Since then, the rifle has been a constant and we now have an all volunteer Army, rather than a conscripted Army like in those three wars.

Conclusion:
1. The rifle made a big difference.
2. Motivated and highly trained soldiers ALSO made a big difference.

Obviously, both helped.

Drue
April 1, 2005, 07:07 PM
If one follows the link to Fackler from the AR-15.com Ammo Oracle, one will read that both the temporary and permanent wounds from the West German 7.62NATO Ball are 60% larger than those from the 5.56M193 Ball.

If you put the numbers through a calculator, you will see that a 7.62 ball round can exit a target at 100 yards at nearly 2000 FPS after depositing as much energy in the target as the 5.56 ball has at that range.

I like the AR and I like the .223 but I have serious doubts that it causes more grievous wounds than a .308. If the .223 is as effective as some would have us believe, why are we issuing the M262 77gr ammo? Why are we experimenting with the 6.8? Why has SOCOM specified the 7.62 option for the SCAR? Why is the M14 being redeployed?

Drue

MTMilitiaman
April 1, 2005, 07:23 PM
Okay, first off, there is nothing in the rules of war that would restict the United States military from using any sort of ammunition it deemed necessary. If the military wanted to give Hornady a contract to make the 110 gr TAP the standard infantry ammunition, then the extent of US involvement in the Hague Accords would allow this.
Secondly, from similar barrel lengths the 110 grain 7.62mm and the 62 gr 5.56mm have similar velocities. A thin jacket can cause the 7.62mm to break in half around the cannelure much like the M193 and if this be the case then the 7.62's advantage in penetration is still a good thing.
Thirdly, yes, we shoot deer and elk and sheep and bear. And we do it with guns bigger than .22 caliber because you eventually come to realize that even with expanding ammunition, the smaller calibers can't match the ballistics of the bigger calibers. Opening up an animal's chest cavity and seeing the extent of the difference is sobering. If you want to knock something's dick in the dirt and keep it there for good, it is a good idea to have enough gun for the job. Does that mean I advocate giving soldiers bolt action 7 Mags like I take into the field? No. They won't be expected to drop a 600 pound bull elk. But the respective rounds are used in their respective commercial fields for a reason. The .223 is a coyote cartridge, the .308 is an excellent deer cartridge. You can get the job done on deer with the .223 but it requires far more things to go absolutely right for you. Hunters use the .308 over the .223 on deer sized game because it is their responsiblity to assure as quick and humane of a kill as is possible. In combat, a quick kill simply means that much less time the enemy is combat effective. People can accuse me of being overly optimistic towards bigger calibers and expecting enemies to go down in a single round. But if you ask me, erroring on the side of caution is a good thing, and going into the field with a cartridge designed to drop the enemy with a single shot sounds alot better to me than relying on having 200 more rounds behind the first. So once again, if given a choice between 120 or 150 .30 caliber rounds or twice as many .22 caliber rounds, I am going to pick the .30 caliber rounds because I have been studying the effect of bullets on living tissue my entire life. If having less ammunition means I actually have to aim my rifle, well, God-forbid, that's a sacrifice I am willing to take.

The Body Bagger
April 1, 2005, 07:30 PM
that's a sacrifice I am willing to take.

I too have taken a moment to look deep within me and have decided that I too must take that sacrifice......... :)

Handy
April 1, 2005, 07:38 PM
Slow aimed fire, heavy calibers and not wasting ammunition. Three concepts that the US has been slogging on with since the beginning. They didn't work during the Civil War, they didn't work in WWI and yet they are still hanging with us because too many people believe that war is more like elk hunting.


But in the real world icky concepts like "suppressive fire" and "fully automatic fire" actually are the norm, and effective. Over and over, soldiers have demonstrated that they are more effective if they don't have to always line up a semiauto shot. Shooting around a corners or over walls end up being more effective than waiting for someone to bravely stick their rifle and head out into the open.

Soldiers carry lots of ammunition because alot of it gets wasted doing things that don't immediately kill, but do win wars.

MTMilitiaman
April 1, 2005, 07:48 PM
So the creed that every Marine is a rifleman is only true until the Marine is in combat and then those protrusions from the top of the rifle become irrelevent to the more useful tactic of just spraying rounds in the general direction of the enemy? Gotcha.

cheygriz
April 1, 2005, 08:09 PM
Hey, Jailbird!

Yeah, I've shot the M-1, (Garand and carbine) M-14 and M-16. I've also shot the M-60 and the M-2! I was issued an M-1 carbine for 4 years. (Probably before you were born!)

Don't assume someone has no experience just because he doesn't agree with the gun magazine crap you accept as gospel.

Mtmilitiaman,

You're probably about the age of my grandson if you're at MSU. You're gonna be amazed at how much smarter your parents, and other "old people get as you mature.

Stiletto
April 1, 2005, 09:21 PM
So the creed that every Marine is a rifleman is only true until the Marine is in combat and then those protrusions from the top of the rifle become irrelevent to the more useful tactic of just spraying rounds in the general direction of the enemy? Gotcha.Hooray for pointless sarcasm.

How many rounds from a machine gun do you think actually hit?

The things are used as much/more for suppressive fire as for actually killing things.

You can do it like the old days, where the squad is mainly bolt-action or semiautomatic rifles, maybe one or two submachine guns, and a machine gun. Or you can do it the modern way with assault rifles for everyone.

They can lay down their own suppressive fire as they go, and when they have a shot of opportunity, they can zero in and take someone out with a few well-placed rounds.

So yeah, in combat, every Marine is a rifleman when he has a shot. The rest of the time, every Marine is trying to keep himself and his fire team alive.

jailbait
April 1, 2005, 11:35 PM
okay, first off cheygriz, i was asking an honest question. the reason i asked is cause every post you've made on this thread has lacked substance and true factual information. I've yet to take a cheap shot at you, and would ask that you not hijack this thread with anymore crap like that....

that being said. i'm only 26, and have fired both rounds. So has my dad. My dad trained with a m1a while in bct ages ago, was issued the m1a, m14, and m16 throughout his career. he has also had a chance to fire captured ak47s. care to take a guess he thought was the most effective weapon / ammunition fired?

and i tend to agree with him....

that was my last personal shot....

Handy
April 2, 2005, 12:34 AM
MT,

I thought the Marines issued machineguns, assault rifles, grenade launchers and shotguns.

Please explain how a "rifleman" properly utilizes a shotgun.

Crosshair
April 2, 2005, 02:24 AM
To everyone who thinks that the assault rifle in .223 is the best all around weapon for everything.

"When your only tool is a Hammer, every problem looks like a Nail"

A surgon has a microscalpel for small blood vessles and nerves. He also has a bone saw, a multitude of drills and bits, (many bigger than you want to know about :eek: ) and clamps. Heck, they even have a hammer to get the rib cage open in a hurry.

Most of the time you use the scalpel, you only use the hammer when you REALLY need it. The problem I see is that we are using a microscalpel (5.56) when what would get the job done best is a plain scalpel (6.8SPC). The large scalpel (7.62x51) has its place and can get a job done quite effectively. However there are times when the large scalpel is too large and unwieldly to be effectivly used. Thus the surgon has a variety of tools at his disposal to deal with problems as they arise.

When you try to build a tool to do everything well, you get a tool that does nothing well.

SIGLOCKAUR
April 2, 2005, 02:29 AM
Come on guys read a little history. The M-16 was never meant to be a Main Battle Rifle. It is an assualt weapon. After WW II and Korea the armed forces looked at what took place in actual combat. They found most battle took place within 300 meters. Most less than 100 meters. It was decided that for the ranges of actual combat the heavy Main Battle Rifle and it's large round was not needed. The requirements for the M-16 as far as terinal effects were that it be more effective than the M-1 carbine out to these ranges. A light gun, that was effective out to 300 meters, that could be contolled in full auto fire. This is avery brief description of the history of the M-16. The original models after teething problems were worked out performed to the specs designated for this assualt weapon. The concept was evidently valid because every nation in the world including Russia who once used the 7.62X39 roud that some think is so great went to their own version of a small bore high velocity round. No major armed forces still use the 7.62x51 as standard issue. The problem as others have stated came when they took a weapon that was originally designed to replace pistols for artillerymen, helicopter cewmwmbers, tankers and so on and n the army anyways are trying to make it standard issue. Then they
bought into the NATO standard round round that had to penetrate a steel helmet beyond the range the .223 was supposed to be effective. It's a cluster, well you know the rest. Now just like the Soviets we find ourselves in Afghanistan and Iraq where engagement distance are beyond what a full sized M-16 was designed for. The Soviets soon learned to augment their AK-74's with lots of designated marksmen with Druganov's when long range shots were called for. Guess what? We are following their example by augmenting our troops with lots of designated marksmen with scoped M-14's because these weapons were designed to be effective out to 600 yards and beyond. A good mix of .308 and .223. With a good bullet the (like the 77 gr. OTM) even the M-4 with good shot placement does the job. Their are numerous reports of SCAR armed (in .223 with the OTM rounds) Special Forces sending lots of the Jihadists on there way to wherever they are going. In fact in one instances recetly reported two S.F.'s types with SCARS covered their brothers in arms retreat against 100 Jihadists. When the shooting was done 93 of these bad guys were dead. SO don't say the .223 doesn't work. The caveat is that it orks well out to 300 meters (although farther kills have been reported). I think you will see we wll continue to have a mix of .308 and .223 for some time to come. With good shot placement the .223 works within its design parameters. It is a better general issue weapon. But when needed have plenty of .308's also for those long shots that Main Battle Rifles were made for. No matter how hard the armed forces may try one size does not fit all.

MTMilitiaman
April 2, 2005, 06:39 AM
Okay, I realize that having not been in combat I can't imagine what it is really like. But I just have a hard time imaging that I have to a) hump this ammo over that mountain, b) this ammo and its ability to function in my rifle is the only thing keeping me alive, and c) I am going to spray it needlessly into the wind instead of ultilizing it as efficiently as possible.
My grandpa was in Korea. He humped the Garand and the BAR on patrols. These weapons weigh over 10 and 20 pounds respectively and you can't carry near as much ammo as you can in the 5.56mm, but my grandpa and those he served with remember these weapons fondly and never ran out of ammo. Why? They aimed most of their shots and when the larger round connected, it tended to kill the enemy and do it fast. Reliable and rugged rifles that save the asses of the people who carry them tend to earn a place in their hearts, regardless of their weight or the weight of their ammo.
Surpressive fire is and probably always will be a necessary evil of modern warfare. I realize you can't aim every shot. But when you have more surpressive fire than aimed rifle fire...that just strikes me as somehow...inefficent. Even if it is effective.
And all this is beside my main point. Even if the 5.56mm gets the job done, I am sure there is relatively few people who think it is the best option available. If anyone can provide a good reason why the 6.8 isn't better, I'd like to hear it. Yes, it may not be quite as controllable as the 5.56 and you can't carry quite as much ammo, but Jesus Christ people, if these things matter that much, then we should be looking into .17 caliber rimfires. Hell, they fragment and tumble...
Anyways, I am done here. I realize I don't have experience in the matter where it matters most. If you people really like your M16s and .223s, you can have them. Me, I can't imagine ever volunatirely trusting my life to such instruments and though I plan on military service in the near future, I also plan on doing everything in my power to end up with something "mo-bigga" than the .223 and more reliable than the M16.

Handy
April 2, 2005, 10:37 AM
Yes, it may not be quite as controllable as the 5.56 and you can't carry quite as much ammo, but Jesus Christ people, if these things matter that much, then we should be looking into .17 caliber rimfires. That's about the 4.7mm caliber the G11 fired. West Germany was a hair's breath from adopting this rifle - the cost of reunification stopped it. We also did extensive testing of the same - and didn't adopt because it didn't increase hits by the 100% goal. Had that been demonstrated - that's likely what our troops would be carrying.

Why didn't it demonstrate 100% improvement? Because the M16A2 is so good. Had it been matched against the M14 it would have. (The Germans were going to go directly from the .308 G3 to the G11.)

jailbait
April 2, 2005, 11:07 AM
i probably should have thrown this one out there earlier. if the military wants to have a weapon that is only effective, let's say out to 100m, then why not go with a carbine? like the berretta storm, or the walther g3. hell then they could carry all the ammo they would want.....

wacki
April 4, 2005, 06:11 PM
I've read account after account of US soldier's in the middle east using captured ak47s while on patrol, and some of the special forces guys using them strictly all together.

Personally i think that they (and some law enforcement personell are) should look at a .308 variant. like armalite's ar10 series. Hell even the .300 featured in this month's special weapons for military and law enforcement would be a good canadate.

5.56 just doesn't have the ballistics that they are looking for out of a 14-16 inch barrel.

Why would they drop the m16 and pick up an AK? What is wrong with their rifle?


EDIT: just read the distance thing. Is the M14 the best we have for longer range main battle rifle??? Wow, that is old technology.

jailbait
April 4, 2005, 06:33 PM
there wasn't "anything wrong" with thier issued weapons, it's just that the ak47 is that much better of a weapon. the 7.62 will punch through just about anything hajie has built over there, and can be fired under any conditions.

wacki
April 7, 2005, 04:21 PM
there wasn't "anything wrong" with thier issued weapons, it's just that the ak47 is that much better of a weapon.

If they are dropping their weapons then there is something wrong. Tell me what a AK47 can do that makes the soldiers want to drop their m16.

wacki
April 7, 2005, 04:24 PM
Why has SOCOM specified the 7.62 option for the SCAR?

What is the SCAR?

wacki
April 7, 2005, 04:32 PM
M855's?

what is that?

The Body Bagger
April 7, 2005, 05:11 PM
wacki- what is that?

jailbait
April 7, 2005, 06:19 PM
waki:
the scar is a new weapons platform based off of the ptr-91 frame... i believe

The Body Bagger
April 7, 2005, 07:04 PM
Actually the SCAR is based upon the FNC. Info can be found here (http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm) Ptr 91 are based upon HK G3's which are based upon Cetme's.

Morpheus32
April 7, 2005, 07:51 PM
Gents,

I kind of have to jump in here and comment on a couple of things. I have been lurking and felt the need to contribute!

Firstly there is a big difference in the needs of the individual rifleman in a platoon or company and that of the armed citizen. What you might feel comfortable with fighting zombies or the like is significantly different from a soldier. A soldier is part of a team, each of the weapons in the platoon is designed to compliment and support the other. SAWs, 240Bs, M203, Mk19, M2, Javelin, M4, M14, M16A2, M16A4, M9 etc. The troops on the ground do there darnest, to maximize the effectiveness of their team. As required they modify the what they need to complete the task at hand. Notice the employment of designated marksman within squads and platoons. What you are seeing today is Iraq and Afghanistan is a flexible and progressive military that is taking advantage of everything they have in the inventory. TTPs are being developed, modified and reviewed all with the aim of making the squad, platoon and company more effective at eliminating the enemy. There is no perfect weapon, no utilitarian firearm that is the best at all things. A weapon is a tool, the platoon commander, like a mechanic, selects the tools he needs to do his job and employs them to the best of their ability. The troops are doing grand work overseas right now.

Throughout this post I hear some of the standard gun rag comments on firearms. I find it really interesting to hear that the M4 and M16 are so unreliable that troops are throwing them away. If you look a little closer, the reason the people were picking them up was their personal defense weapon was an M9 and they found it lacking and wanted a long arm. Tank crews who outstripped their infantry on the advance felt the need rather urgently. This was stretched into troops throwing away there rifles.....During my tour in Afghanistan in 2002 with the 3rd Brigade of the 101st, we had no complaints on the m4 in terms of reliablity or performance. Zero. The concerns were on upgrading the M68 and the issuing of optics. I was surpised to read on my return for Afghanistan, all the problems we had with weapons and ammunition. The point is that the gun rags need something to chat about. The "malfunction" example with the 508th Maintenance is a great one. The troops failed to conduct any sort of weapon maintenance and when they needed them, they failed. Guess what, all weapons need maintenance, even the exaulted AK. If you don't maintain your rifle for over a week in the desert, your going to have problems. That is exactly what happened to the 508th.

The biggest killer on the battlefield today, both in Afghanistan and Iraq are artillery, mortars and air support. The army has snipers and machine guns to cover the 300-900 meter engagement area and concentrates on 300m or less for the rifleman. The future is night fighting and urban, both of which are close range affairs. As noted above, the platoon commander will bring a mix of weapons to the fight and employ them to maximize there performance. For clearing buildings, caves, bunkers and urban fighting, the M4 is doing exactly as it was intended to do. The army does not fight with just the M4, it is a team effort.

No the discussion of the M4 goes in a different direction when we discuss the armed citizen. THe armed citizen has the ability to pick and choose the engagement area and make a well informed guess on the enemy threat in terms of ballistic needs. A firearms instructor once told me to look outside your house and imagine places were a person could position themselves to engage your home. The range in question say 150m would dictate the training ranges that you would need to work at so 150m to 0m. So the M4, loaded with 75 gr TAP or 77OTM might do you just fine. If the distance was longer, you might choose a differnet firearm altogether. Then again you might be served well by the m4 with the 77OTM. The point here is the armed citizen has a wide range of choices for when the zombies come and can prepare accordingly. The soldier on the other hand is part of a complimentary team and the platoon leader or NCO will balance the tools they need to get the job done.

So I would argue that the military does already use the 308 in both machine guns and sniper rifles, it has the M4 for CQB to 300m situations complimented by SAWs, grenades, LAWs AT4, 40mm grenades etc. This brings balance to the force :) Systems are being improved and upgraded to adapt and overcome. The military would not be well served by one "hammer" as noted earlier, but rather a robust set of tools all working together. Looking at one portion of the tool box or professing the need for one hammer demonstrates a lack of understand of what is really needed. Flexiblity is the key, there is no perfect weapon.

For the record, I own M14s and AR15s. My two go to rifles are a 10.25 AR15 set up with an aimpoint loaded with 75 gr TAP and my other is a NM M1A. Both my tools in my tool box for me to use.

Jeff

The Body Bagger
April 7, 2005, 08:09 PM
My go to gear of choice isn't listed here and unfortunately its almost impossible and rather illegal to come by for non current military personel or for personal usage by military members:



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/m-18-dvic585.jpg


I would of course like to be able to line the perimeter of my house as most normal red blooded Americans do. Its a damn crying shame fine upstanding citizens or LE personal aren't allowed these for personal use........... :(

Big-Foot
April 7, 2005, 08:12 PM
wacki, M855 62 gr. green tip is the current issue ammo.
Explained here: http://www.ammo-oracle.com/

jailbait
April 7, 2005, 09:29 PM
I would hope that no one on this board would question / slander the job being done by our armed forces abroad. I thank you for doing what i couldn't.