The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 1, 2018, 04:54 PM   #51
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
Quote:
It is not a thirteen year old proposal.
Who said it was?

The link to the request for prototypes was to a document dated January 2016. That is 3 years old--or 2 years 10 months, if you prefer.
Quote:
6.8mm will be the US Army new General Purpose Round.
The prototypes submitted for evaluation will be chambered for cartridges with 6.8mm bullets. If one of the prototypes is selected then the new Army General Purpose Round will be 6.8mm. If none of the prototypes are selected then it will remain 5.56mm.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 04:59 PM   #52
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
USSOCOM have been testing rifles and LMGs in .260 Remington and 6.5 mm
Creedmoor, commercial cartridges which basically use the 7.62 NATO case necked down to 6.5 mm. Current planning shows 6.5 mm ammunition development in 2018, fielding of an LMG to fire it in 2019 and a rifle in 2020.
They are leaving no stone unturned in seeking a replacement.

Quote:
Next, the question of support rifles and machine guns. Once again, it is SOCOM which is leading the way in studying new developments.
http://quarryhs.co.uk/ArticleDCMS2017.pdf

Quote:
If none of the prototypes are selected then it will remain 5.56mm.
You do realize that 5.56mm has been far from ideal and with the advent of the bad guys using even rudimentary body armor...completely ineffective.

I will buy the beer if the US Army keeps 5.56mm.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:15 PM   #53
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
and with the advent of the bad guys using even rudimentary body armor...completely ineffective.
Advent...ADVENT...???

Your saying thats something new?
Sharkbite is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:22 PM   #54
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
Quote:
You do realize that 5.56mm has been far from ideal and with the advent of the bad guys using even rudimentary body armor...completely ineffective.

I will buy the beer if the US Army keeps 5.56mm.
However improbable you (or I) believe it might be, it is certainly a possibility. Therefore it's a bit premature to be making pronouncements of fact at this point.
Quote:
...with the advent of the bad guys using even rudimentary body armor...completely ineffective.
I'm guessing that you know it takes much more than just "rudimentary body armor" to make any centerfire rifle round "completely ineffective". That's not even getting into rifle rounds with steel penetrator cores like the current military issue 5.56 rounds.

It hurts your position when you make statements that are so painfully obviously not based in fact.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:38 PM   #55
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Your saying thats something new?
I never encountered any Taliban/AQ with body armor on any of my tours or engagements.

ONE engagement occurred in 2009 where body armor was reported. The enemy unit was suspected of being a foreign fighter element and not mainstream AQ or Taliban.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:42 PM   #56
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
Regardless of what may or may not have been likely in one theater, the idea that opponents with body armor is something new or is a possibility that the designers of the current 5.56 ammo were unaware of is pretty far-fetched.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:42 PM   #57
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
t hurts your position when you make statements that are so painfully obviously not based in fact.
Combined with an offer of buying beer....

While the statement is most certainly based upon fact, it is not intended to be a scientific literal declaration hence to offer the of frosty beverages to be shared among friends, LOL.

Thanks for setting the lines and the terrain. I will let you guys get back to it.

Quote:
The 5.56 round, we recognize there is a type of body armor it does not penetrate, and adversarial states are selling that stuff on the Internet for about $250," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the full Senate Armed Services Committee on May 25.
https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...t-new-bullets/

The Marines...still using PRC-77's in 1997...

Man if they realize it, you know it has to be bad.
davidsog is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 05:47 PM   #58
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,928
We're on the same page that there is at least some chance of the 5.56 being retained. That was the context in which your offer for the beer was made.

My comment that you quoted was about the assertion that "even rudimentary body armor" rendered 5.56mm "completely ineffective", not about the chances of the 5.56 being retained or replaced.
Quote:
The 5.56 round, we recognize there is a type of body armor it does not penetrate...
Yes, advanced body armor can defeat centerfire rifle rounds. I think that's pretty common knowledge.

Just as it is common knowledge that "rudimentary body armor" is not going to defeat rifle rounds.
Quote:
I will let you guys get back to it.
Right...
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 1, 2018, 06:17 PM   #59
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
The M14's adoption was the result of the U.S. military cooking the books against the FAL.
I won't argue that, its quite possible, especially given the relatively recent experience of WWII and the "not invented here" syndrome.

Quote:
Compare the service history of the FAL to the M14, both in terms of longevity and in terms of countries of issue and there's really no room for debate. The M14 was issued by 2 or 3 countries for less than 10 years. The FAL was issued by almost 100 countries over a period of several decades.
This, on the other hand I have to argue. I don't feel its any kind of fair comparison, The longevity in service was short in the US not due to any flaw in the rifle or the round, but due to a change in philosophy, and the rifle was not "marketed" to the world, only a couple of our allies adopted it, and after we dropped it, they didn't keep an "unsupported" system all that long. Contrast to the FAL which was marketed to the world, and supported by both the original makers and many others throughout its entire service life.

Why didn't we push the M14 as the rifle for our allies before the M16? Might be that the huge stocks of WWII and Korean war leftovers were enough to supply anti-communist forces who needed something but didn't need, or couldn't afford our "cutting edge" M14. By the time we might have reached the point where the Garands, Carbines and other WWII small arms weren't enough, we had switched to the M16, and retired the M14.

How many of our allies adopted the M16, anyway? And I mean shortly after we did? or even a couple decades later? Not a lot. Lots went to the 5.56mm round, but NOT in the M16 series of rifles, they adopted rifles either of their own domestic make, or from the major world arms dealers (such as FN, H&K,etc.)

So, while many nations adopted our "standard" cartridge, not so many accepted our rifle for it.

My understanding the reason for the steel penetrator insert in the M855 ammo was to counter the body armor then being fielded by Warsaw Pact forces.

That armor is unlikely to be found used by the terrorist guerilla forces. But there is a "low tech" body armor that is common, the Chinese style chest pack of magazine pouches full of loaded mags.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 2, 2018, 09:22 AM   #60
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
I never encountered any Taliban/AQ with body armor on any of my tours or engagements.
I doubt the boys and girls at the Pentagon are going to base their procurement needs on YOUR experience in ONE conflict. The GWOT is not where they have their eyes. Future threats include more then mud hut fighters wearing cheetahs and light clothing.

An armed conflict with N. Korea or China, any of the Baltic states, Iran, any other major player WILL involve first rate body armor.

Youve gotta look into the crystal ball and predict what the NEXT conflict will be and whats needed to fight THAT.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old November 2, 2018, 10:31 AM   #61
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
I never encountered any Taliban/AQ with body armor on any of my tours or engagements.
Dakota Meyer (MOH recipiint) in "In the Fire" noted encountering helmet and body armor wearing Taliban at Ganjigal.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 2, 2018, 05:47 PM   #62
agtman
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
I never encountered any Taliban/AQ with body armor on any of my tours or engagements.
Definitely an expert on one instance ...
agtman is offline  
Old November 2, 2018, 06:19 PM   #63
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
Seems to me we've wandered enough in this briar patch. Rest assured that the subject will rise again.
Art Eatman is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.09413 seconds with 10 queries