The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 18, 2017, 09:42 PM   #1
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
Army Times story

Others may already know this but it was news to me. According to the Army Times 6.5 to 7mm cartridges are being tested as a possible replacement for the 5.56. Among those mentioned being tested were the 6.5 Creedmoor and 260 Rem. An interesting sidebar was that they were also looking into polymer cases instead of brass. Should be interesting to see how things develop.
oldscot3 is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 10:03 PM   #2
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
According to the Army Times circa 2004, the XM8 is going to replace the M16 as the standard infantry rifle and we are going to abandon the Picatinny rail for HK's proprietary system.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 18, 2017, 11:33 PM   #3
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
2004? Would I be wrong to suspect you don't place much credibility in Army Times reporting? It may not happen for a long time, but the army has been known to change weapons and ammunition before.

The article I read dates from this month I believe. My takeaway was that they're looking for something with a bit more energy at longer range.
oldscot3 is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 08:13 AM   #4
g.willikers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,449
If so, does that mean there's going to be lots of surplus ammo available soon?
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez:
“Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.”
g.willikers is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 09:40 AM   #5
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
Ha, wishful thinking I bet. They would probably give it all away to our "friends" in other countries, or destroy it all before allowing citizens to buy it.
oldscot3 is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 10:29 AM   #6
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,034
Quote:
does that mean there's going to be lots of surplus ammo available soon?
the short answer is...

NO


Not soon, if ever. IF (when????) they go to a different round, supplies stockpiled in the states MAY go in the surplus market, depending on the administration in power at the time.

Stuff that wen overseas ISN'T coming back. Period.

Back in the 70s, at one of the bases I was on, in Germany, the Army Times was proudly displayed on the shelf of the Stars&Stripes bookstore. Right next to the Rolling Stone.

Between the two, we found the Rolling Stone to have more accurate, factual information.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 11:02 AM   #7
emcon5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 1999
Location: High Desert NV
Posts: 2,551
Did the article talk specifically about replacing the 5.56 as the general infantry round, or more specifically about for sniper systems?

Was it this article?

http://www.militarytimes.com/article...s-sniper-rifle

While I wouldn't say it is impossible, I find it pretty unlikely that 6.5CM or .260 would be even a remote consideration for a new general infantry rifle, while not as much recoil as the .308, they are still a little excessive for FA fire, and the ammo loadout would be lower per soldier, because the ammo weighs more and takes up more space.
emcon5 is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 11:34 AM   #8
JoeSixpack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 688
Someone correct me if im wrong but aren't we required to stick to NATO rounds?

They might be looking for a new rifle but I can't imagine them switching from 5.56

Quote:
Ha, wishful thinking I bet. They would probably give it all away to our "friends" in other countries, or destroy it all before allowing citizens to buy it.
Ain't that the truth.
JoeSixpack is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 11:49 AM   #9
T. O'Heir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,073
"...aren't we required to stick to NATO rounds..." That'd be the theory. Except both the 7.62NATO and 5.56NATO were U.S. inventions nobody in NATO actually wanted but got jammed down other NATO country's throats by the U.S.
Then there's the .45 ACP, that has never been a NATO cartridge, the U.S. used until 1985 despite that.
"...destroy it all before allowing citizens to buy it..." Yep. Included approximately 500,000 perfectly good C1A1's, C2's, No. 4 and 7 rifles that got chopped by our idiot government.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count!
T. O'Heir is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 02:02 PM   #10
ndking1126
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2008
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 1,747
Anyone familiar with the 6x6.8 SPC wildcat? I'm not a serious reloader, so I generally don't spend much time with wildcats, but this one caught my eye. Actually seems like it would be a good candidate for the Army. (I don't think the Army is going to change calibers anytime soon.. just thinking outloud.)

I can't find much data, but it seems like it can push an 6mm 85 grain bullet about 2800 fps with a 16" barrel. That definitely will have a little more authority than the 55 or 62 gr 5.56.

It should feed more reliably because of the straighter case taper, be easier to lug around and have less recoil than the 260 Rem (same size as the 7.62 of course). Down size is it won't have the range or "knock down power" of the 260.

On the other hand, I own a 260 Rem. If the Army were to pick the caliber up, maybe I'd start seeing it on the shelves again.. hmm.
__________________
The Jeep has been a lot of fun, but time to come back to my first hobby.. shooting.
ndking1126 is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 03:12 PM   #11
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,569
Lots more information on this in the following, recent thread: "Military replacing the 5.56?"

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...ht=army&page=3
DaleA is offline  
Old May 19, 2017, 11:27 PM   #12
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
Emcon5- No. The article was,

New rifle, bigger bullets; Inside the Army's plan to
ditch the M4 and 5.56. By Todd South, Army Times
May 7, 2017
oldscot3 is offline  
Old May 20, 2017, 12:20 AM   #13
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 6,139
If it is replaced, all that surplus ammunition and rifles will be used against us on some future battlefield because we sold it or gave it away.
rickyrick is offline  
Old June 4, 2017, 09:01 AM   #14
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,793
I'm an old man, I wont be serving in an infantry company any more and I certainly wont get a vote on what the army picks or doesn't pick. I know what worked for me when I did serve in combat in SE Asia, but Vietnam is History, not doctrine.

I do recall having an "Infantry Magazine" from the 70s that reported that by the summer of 1976 the Army would field a AR rifle in 6 MM. 1976 came and gone, we are still using the 223/5.56 so I don't put much stock in what is being reported what the Army might or will do.

Doesn't effect me anyway. I shoot for fun, competition and hunting. I pick what works for my lifestyle and not as if I'm going into combat, because I'm not.

I've seen a lot since I first joined the Army in 1966. I've seen a lot that had been reported that WAS gonna happen but DIDN'T.

They may in the future turn over surplus 5.56 ammo to the CMP to sell to civilians. Then they might not. Who knows. They did give '06 ammo to the DCM/CMP for us peons. In the past 45s, 30 carbine, and others. What they do in the future is anybody's guess.

I turn 70 next month, what ever they do, I wont be around to take advantage of, I'm certainly not sending the CMP a check to get on the waiting list for 5.56 ammo.

But its fun to speculate. I do, even knowing "what if's" don't come to pass.

I've played the game and its bit me in the butt a time or two. One such speculation got me big time.

When the NG was going to replace our M1C/D sniper rifles, running the AK NG Sniper Program at the time, I was given a choice of replacing our M1s with either the M21 or waiting for the M24s. I knew the M24s were capable of 308 or converting to 300 WM. My Rifle team at the time was shooting Model 70s in 300 WM, so I figured the M24 in 300 WM would give me better access to 300 Ammo for our 1000 yard matches, So I opted to take the M21, and would wait tell the M24 300s came out. That was in the 80s. I don't remember the exact day, but its only been within the last 10 years or so that the M24 series became readily available in 300 WM, long after I got out of the game. So I handy capped our sniper program by not taking the current (in the 80s) M24s.

But that's all water under the bridge, the only sniper rifle I use now is the M1904A4 in CMP Vintage Sniper Matches.

In short, take what you read about Army Rifles and Ammo with a grain of salt. Spend the effort picking rifles/ammo for what you shoot now, not what the Army might or might not do. Trust me, if you join, you don't get a choice. You get what's issued, not what speculators think you should have.

Marksmanship fundamentals are marksmanship fundamentals, they don't change. Concentrate on that, and you'll be ready for anything you or the army chooses.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old June 4, 2017, 03:15 PM   #15
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,525
Oldscot, I think the point here is that we have seen numerous times over the years how the military is going to a new cartridge, new rifle, or new pistol. They will play around with a variety of toys, do dog and pony shows, and then change little or nothing except maybe letting a small subset use the new weapon.

Maybe this time they will make an actual change, but then again it didn't happen the last several times...If they cry "Wolf!" enough times, sooner or later the wolf will come, but usually not.
__________________
"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 June 4, 2017, 04:49 PM   #16
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,996
Quote:
In short, take what you read about Army Rifles and Ammo with a grain of salt. Spend the effort picking rifles/ammo for what you shoot now, not what the Army might or might not do. Trust me, if you join, you don't get a choice. You get what's issued, not what speculators think you should have.

Marksmanship fundamentals are marksmanship fundamentals, they don't change. Concentrate on that, and you'll be ready for anything you or the army chooses.
That is great advice.

I remember reading glowing reviews of the XM29 OICW and how it would revolutionize infantry combat. Lots of money was spent with little gain.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old June 4, 2017, 06:39 PM   #17
Don Fischer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 434
Wonder why they would do that? On just carrying ammo alone, they can carry more 5.56 ammo. It they did make it the Creedmore, it would destroy the 260 completely I would thing.
Don Fischer is offline  
Old June 4, 2017, 07:28 PM   #18
stolivar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2004
Posts: 351
they would go with the 6.5 Grendel before

They went with the Creedmore. it would take a bigger upper and you could not carry as much ammo. The Grendel gives you longer shots with more punch. Allows to carry as much ammo and still use the 5.56 sized uppers.



steve
stolivar is offline  
Old June 4, 2017, 10:20 PM   #19
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
I don't have a horse in the race, so it doesn't matter to me a whit what the army does or doesn't do, just thought the article was a bit interesting. I have been under the impression that perhaps the 55 grain 5.56 wasn't meeting certain needs in current theaters of operation since we keep seeing heavier projectiles, 62, 69, 77 appearing and changes to quicker twists in order to accommodate them. Seems logical to connect that tidbit to Army testing of larger calibers with even heavier bullets and at least imagine that they might serious.

Also the sidebar about polymer cases interests me since the cost of brass just keeps going up and up.
oldscot3 is offline  
Old June 5, 2017, 10:20 AM   #20
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,525
Quote:
The Grendel gives you longer shots with more punch. Allows to carry as much ammo and still use the 5.56 sized uppers.
While I am a huge fan of the Grendel and hunt with one several times a week, I am also realistic about it. You cannot get longer shots with more punch with the Grendel over the 5.56 and still carry the same amount of ammo. Grendel rounds are not the same size, shape, and weight of 5.56 rounds. You are looking at a bullet roughly double in size and a case akin to that of the 7.62x39. So Grendel rounds are fatter and heavier and while still fitting into a 5.56 magazine (different follower) do not fit with as many rounds. In a 30 round 5.56 mag, you can get 25 Grendel rounds. So you are going to be down about 1/6.

So NO, you can't carry as much ammo because Grendel rounds are bigger and heavier than 5.56 rounds.
__________________
"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 June 5, 2017, 06:43 PM   #21
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 6,721
Quote:
I remember reading glowing reviews of the XM29 OICW and how it would revolutionize infantry combat. Lots of money was spent with little gain.
And then all the money they spent trying to spin off and sell the XM8 to the Army. Dodged that bullet...
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 8, 2017, 08:34 AM   #22
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,087
The Army is looking into purchasing another 308 Battle rifle. To replace the M110 (the Knights Armament SR-25), not to replace the M4.

The USMC did just put out an RFI which opens up the caliber option to be anything from 5.56 to 7.62 with all the wonder calibers in between. I do not believe that anything will come of it except either an M4A2 variant or more M27s purchased.

Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old June 8, 2017, 11:02 AM   #23
oldscot3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2007
Location: texas
Posts: 790
Jimro, that's in direct contradiction to the author, as stated in the title. What's your source?

See post #12.
oldscot3 is offline  
Old June 8, 2017, 12:22 PM   #24
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,087
oldscot3,

You must be referring to this: https://www.armytimes.com/articles/n...the-m4-and-556

This is the same author, Todd South who wrote this: http://www.militarytimes.com/article...s-sniper-rifle

The above articles are "true" in that the Army and SOCOM is doing some testing. However the truth is that the Army (and Navy) are doing testing on things ALL the time. Right now there are no Congressionally funded programs to replace the 5.56x45 round of which I am aware.

Things that are true, and are funded.

The Army is looking for a replacement SDR solution in 7.62:
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/04/05...-battle-rifle/

H&K won the M110 replacement with their G28 compact semi auto sniper rifle last year, and the back channel chatter is that the Army wants an SDR rifle that isn't an M14EBR so the SDMs don't stand out like sore thumbs.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...2mm-rifle.html

The SDM rifle will be issued at one per Infantry squad, not one per Soldier.

The USMC is keeping everything from 5.56 to 7.62 open in its latest RFI: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0

So right now, there no open contracts to replace the M4A1 in the Army, and the USMC has an open RFI to explore the option of replacing the M4 they just adopted as the standard infantry rifle with something else (something that looks suspiciously like an M4A2 variant or M27 variant in 5.56x45). The RFI is not a contract for acquisition though, it is a process to help the USMC determine if the juice is worth the squeeze to replace what they've got.

Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one.
Jimro is offline  
Old June 8, 2017, 05:41 PM   #25
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 3,569
Thanks for all the links. Interesting reading. And as MANY folk have pointed out MANY times 'when all is said and done, more will be said than done.'
DaleA is offline  
Reply

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 12:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.09186 seconds with 10 queries