The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 2, 2019, 09:52 PM   #76
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,247
Quote:
But the 222 year figure does include some low intensity conflicts, police action and the military’s expulsion of the indigenous population(which accounts for the largest time period)
The United States became the United States with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789. So what 8 years were there where by your definition the United States was not "in a state of war"?

I define the United States being in a "state of war" when Congress declares such a state exists, and at no other time.

This does not mean we are not fighting somewhere, with some portion of our military, but part of our military being at war does not constitute the entire nation being in a state of war.

Simply put, I agree with one of the comments made about our recent combat in "the Sandbox" and "the Rockpile". American troops were at war. AMERICA was at the mall.

We have been in combat, we have been in war, but we have only been in "a state of war" during the declared wars, 1812, the Mexican American war, the Civil War, the Spanish American war, WWI and WWII.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 2, 2019, 10:23 PM   #77
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
I’ll rephrase to conflict, then. As far as I know that the Vietnam conflict was not a declared war, but it’s a hard pill to swallow when my dad, with a silver star for valor and two Purple Hearts, lived with the scars and constant pain with the rifle fragments and other shrapnel imbedded in the entire right side of his body. Some of the fragments were still there at his death at 52; they believe that they removed all of the k9 bone fragments that was in him too. I have more than a few uncles and other kin I’ve never met thanks to conflicts. I got out of the army when I found myself to be the sole surviving male in my family. I’ve been to conflict areas, looked an awful lot like war to me as well.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 3, 2019, 12:42 AM   #78
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,247
Viet Nam and Korea are called "police actions" or conflicts in the official documents. It is absolutely war to the guys on the sharp end.

But "a state of war" is a political term, perhaps even a legal one, though I'm not certain about that last part.

FDR asked Congress to declare that a state of war exists between the United States and the Empire of Japan.

A state of war exists between governments, This in no way trivializes or changes the hell that is war when it is not declared between governments, it's just a narrow term with a very specific meaning.

I am a skeptic about the 6.8mm supplanting the 5.56mm in the near term. I think the Pentagon will study the crap out of it, perhaps even let small contracts and maybe even equip specialty forces with them, but the decision to make it, what ever it turns out to be, the standard service rifle round is a political one, and that is something I cannot foresee.

I have heard it said that MacNamara was obsessed with one standardized rifle round (among other things). Here we are now, all these years later, looking for a better "one size fits all", or are we?

Do remember that while one size may fit all, one size fits almost no one perfectly....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 3, 2019, 01:41 AM   #79
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
For sure, conflicts and police actions are probably the more accurate terms, those seem to have much stricter rules of engagement than a declared war.

One thing for certain is that we’ve been studying war for much longer than western society has existed. The United States has elevated warfare to near perfection, I mean this with no callousness intended. I know that if the 5.56 had been dreadfully ineffective in the past, it would have been replaced years ago. I haven’t served in years, so I concede that it may have outlived it’s usefulness.
If you look at recent actions (post Vietnam) the one sidedness of our few casualties compared to the opposition is staggering. Stagnation of conflicts and persistence of enemy forces is mainly due to the U.S. forces being hamstrung politically. Most groups that take on our troops head on are totally annihilated. Guerrilla tactics are another thing.

I don’t buy into the notion that there is some nefarious intent by the pentagon or government officials that would keep a substandard weapon system in the inventory. There has not been anything that significantly improves on what we have yet. There’s only so much that can be done within the real estate of an M4 and 30rds of 5.56. The velocity that is achieved with with a small diameter bullet is what makes it work as it does. So that’s why they are trying a completely new type of system. They want to achieve high velocity with a projectile of a larger mass... easy with a larger heavier weapon, without question... we’ve done it in the past. But to do it in a light carbine while still maintaining the same ammo load, keeping a tame shootability can’t be done with conventional cartridges can’t be done and achieve worthwhile performance increases. We can get some improved performance currently, but not enough to ditch what we have.
I forget the stats as I’m sitting here, but the propose weapon requires leaps and bounds improvements in performance.

Where the conversation goes off the rails, so to speak, is when some people can’t divorce their thinking from the 6.8spc: this is not the 6.8 spc, same diameter bullet and that’s where the similarities end.

I think it will be a while before we see this implementation full scale. I think a lot will be learned and the knowledge will be applied on future trials.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 5, 2019, 07:02 PM   #80
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
Interesting take on the issue:
Never once heard the term "overmatch" uttered. However I do know the guys who wildcat'd the original 6.8mm and built an AR platform to test it in SOCOM.

Again....never heard the term "overmatch" anywhere in that mix.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 5, 2019, 07:05 PM   #81
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
I'd put money on the 5.56 still being the default cartridge for the average troops well into 2030 and beyond.
yeah...never gonna be replace...wonder bullets...best ev'ah since sliced bread...blah blah blah.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 5, 2019, 08:25 PM   #82
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,274
Quote:
yeah...never gonna be replace
You have missed the point, the Gov't Requisition and purchasing process is not nimble. It'll take a decade for them to get their ducks in a row.

The shear logistics of procurement and distribution of a new rifle and cartridge for the general troops will be a mammoth undertaking.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old August 6, 2019, 10:15 AM   #83
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
You have missed the point, the Gov't Requisition and purchasing process is not nimble. It'll take a decade for them to get their ducks in a row.

The shear logistics of procurement and distribution of a new rifle and cartridge for the general troops will be a mammoth undertaking.
Believe it or not, most of the process is behind us. That is why this contract came down with a 2021 fielding date.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 6, 2019, 11:08 AM   #84
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
2021 is pretty ambitious, being that the weapon doesn’t exist in a final form yet. What is confirmed is the projectile diameter will be 6.8mm/.270in and some prototypes seem to have been submitted for testing.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 6, 2019, 04:33 PM   #85
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,383
This article says the Army plans on starting the replacement of M249s and M4s in 2023: link
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 6, 2019, 04:38 PM   #86
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,247
7.62/.308 ... adopt, and don't look back.
agtman is offline  
Old August 6, 2019, 10:49 PM   #87
ed308
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2016
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 995
Quote:
7.62/.308 ... adopt, and don't look back.
But, it can't do what they want this new round to do. They rejected the 7.62/.308 several years ago.
ed308 is offline  
Old August 7, 2019, 05:21 PM   #88
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,383
I imagine that the Army wants something that shoots flatter, weighs less, has better armor penetration, and lethality than .308.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old August 7, 2019, 07:44 PM   #89
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
This article says the Army plans on starting the replacement of M249s and M4s in 2023: link
The Draft PON on FedBizOps clearly states the TDP was awarded to 6 companies:

Quote:
and awarded on 25 June 2018 six fixed amount, prototype OTAs to the following:
Quote:
The period of performance for each prototype OTA is estimated to be 27 months. B
June 2108 + 2 years and 2 months = August or September 2021.

Quote:
Following successful completion of this OTA, the Government intends to award a follow-on production contract.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/DRAFT_NGSW_PON%20(3).pdf

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=oppo...tabmode=list&=

The intention is to award a production contract. If the United States Army adopts 6.8 mm then the rest of the US Armed Forces will follow suit as will all of NATO.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 7, 2019, 11:30 PM   #90
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
From the article linked in post 85

Quote:
The service's goal is to select a final design for both weapons from a single provider in the first quarter of 2022 and begin replacing M4s and M249s in an infantry brigade combat team (IBCT) in the first quarter of 2023, said Hodne, director of the Army's Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team.
One thing that is consistent about all of these reports is the inconsistency of them.

But, we all know the army never changes, budgets never get axed, programs never get canceled, timelines and deadlines never get behind, politicians stay forever and the army’s interest never follows a new direction. But somehow after 55 years of dragging it’s feet on the 5.56 and other failed attempts at fielding a new weapon... they are finally going to get this one right, ahead of schedule and under budget all within the next election cycle. No need to cross our fingers on this one.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 09:09 AM   #91
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
It will all be mute. At any moment wonder bullets in 5.56mm will be revealed bringing about world peace and unicorns for each of us.

Last edited by davidsog; August 8, 2019 at 09:15 AM.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 09:20 AM   #92
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
From the article linked in post 85
You do know the article is second hand information while the PON is not.
davidsog is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 09:23 AM   #93
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
Not about the 5.56 wonder bullet, it’s about doing something better than everything else used in history.

Last edited by rickyrick; August 8, 2019 at 09:29 AM.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 09:33 AM   #94
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
Myself I don’t care, I don’t have a dog in the fight. But these things rarely pan out on time and are often changed. And at this point, there’s not even a gun yet. Has a name, has a bullet diameter and performance requirements that can’t be met with conventional ammunition and a couple of prototypes.
And yes, it is about physics.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 08:24 PM   #95
agtman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,247
Quote:
Not about the 5.56 wonder bullet, it’s about doing something better than everything else used in history.
Ah, on cartridge selection, the military screwed the pooch a long time ago, back when McArthur vetoed the .276 Pedersen cartridge.

The Pedersen cartridge would've given the troops a lighter, easier-to-shoot M1 Garand, fed off a 10-rd clip. Not to mention, the .276 was demonstrably more accurate than the 30-06 and equalled it in penetration out to 300-/400-yds. The '06 was a better penetrator beyond that distance.

Hatcher's 'Book of the Garand' explains those details.
agtman is offline  
Old August 8, 2019, 08:58 PM   #96
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
Sounds like a good one.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 21, 2019, 10:28 PM   #97
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
And at this point, there’s not even a gun yet.
Ahhh, NO. The first submissions are being test now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=O7QqppSKGzw

http://soldiersystems.net/2019/06/05...ator-in-6-8mm/
davidsog is offline  
Old August 21, 2019, 11:12 PM   #98
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,326
Submissions aren’t a final product... they may not even make the cut. Lots of submissions never make it beyond that.
rickyrick is offline  
Old August 21, 2019, 11:46 PM   #99
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,247
Quote:
Ah, on cartridge selection, the military screwed the pooch a long time ago, back when McArthur vetoed the .276 Pedersen cartridge.

The Pedersen cartridge would've given the troops a lighter, easier-to-shoot M1 Garand, fed off a 10-rd clip. Not to mention, the .276 was demonstrably more accurate than the 30-06 and equalled it in penetration out to 300-/400-yds.
From a performance of the round point of view, I get it, but one needs to balance that against the other practical considerations the military operates under.

Not only is cost one, but so it the attitudes of the people who hold the purse strings. Getting money for a new rifle in the midst of the Depression was one thing, getting money for a completely new cartridge is another thing. The 06 wasn't considered in any way inadequate in those days, only the bolt action rifle we used was. So not only did we have a HUGE investment in the .06, it worked well enough by everyone's standards at the time.

And consider the cost, and added complexity of adding in a new round that only one rifle used. We had one rifle round, used by our service rifle, the BAR, and our medium machine guns. Our .45 pistol round, was used by both the 1911A1 and our SMG.

Again, remember that this is before WWII and in the middle of the Great Depression. During the war we developed the .30 Carbine, an additional round to add to the logistics system, but conditions, and attitudes had changed by then, because we were actively at war.

Always remember the primary purpose of the military is not to field the best weapons possible, it is to accomplish the mission at the most reasonable cost, in terms of both equipment and men.

Simply put, those in charge at the time decided the advantages of the .276 were outweighed by the disadvantage of the cost to produce and convert to it.

And unless what is being studied now produces some truly spectacular improvement over what we are currently using, I suspect the same thing will happen to it. A slight improvement won't do it, absent top down support ordering its adoption.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old August 22, 2019, 03:35 PM   #100
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
A slight improvement won't do it
Which is why the Small Arms Survey was conducted and reached its conclusions BEFORE prototyping occurred.

Simply put, 5.56mm capability to defeat body armor is non existent and is lacking at CQB range legality enough to warrant replacement now.

The studies have been done...the military knows what it wants cartridge wise and is simply looking for a platform to load it into....'

That ship has sailed.

Those platforms are either built or rushing to get into a rapidly closing window. What ever is submitted will enter next phase testing.

They are not going to wait around for pie in the sky when 5.56mm simply is inadequate for the warfighter.

But I guess we can hope, right?
davidsog 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 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11115 seconds with 8 queries