The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 16, 2018, 05:37 PM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
What Would the Army’s Dream Rifle Mean for Tactics?

The Army is currently pursuing a unicorn rifle that will launch a 125gr 6.8mm bullet at 3,500fps from a 16” barrel. The rifle that launches it will cost $10k per unit but have a sight similar to something like the TrackingPoint system. Basic load will be reduced to about 180 rounds for the same amount of weight as the current load.

The distribution will be limited to key combat forces due to cost.

Question for TFL members: How do current tactics have to be adjusted to benefit this weapon system?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 06:04 PM   #2
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
I think the tactics that are in standard use right now by the Armed Forces would be adequate for use with this new round, assuming that the weapons that fire this round will still be of the AR platform. The rifles would essentially be the same and carbines for CQC and urban environments. Even if the military decides to change up the entire battle rifle system and use something like bullpups, the tactics wouldn't change too much. Current combat systems and procedures are perfectly fitted for use with any current-day battle rifle in use throughout the world. Now if someone decides to have all rank and file equipped with M14s or Garand/FAL variants, there will have to be changes. Imagine how door-to-door raids in Fallujah would have to be conducted if every ground-pounder was carrying an M-14 with a full standard battle load of 7.62. A lot more space would be needed by everyone.

I can assume that they are adopting this round as being more heavier than the 5.56, thus with greater penetration and stopping power, without having to bring back the 7.62 for all rank and file like the good ol' days. I don't really see any problem with the 5.56 that is being used now. Nobody is really denying the fact that a properly manufactured 5.56 is a very good penetrator and fight stopper. If they adopt the new round they are going to have to rechamber and remanufacture all guns to chamber it. Should we start expecting more $$$ to be taken out of our paychecks?
Rachen is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 06:55 PM   #3
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
If they are using EXACTO like rounds, tactics need to account for a higher first shot hit. Fewer rounds would be carried but they would be $$$ each.

Trackingpoint is a different targeting system (it IS NOT a guidance system).
Requires specific wind input for a precision hit.
But they might just go with the Suppressive mode that constantly calculates the target solution.
Additionally, tactics must take into account the TP batteries only last a few hours.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 16, 2018, 07:04 PM   #4
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Well, they will have to do away with the notion of fire superiority if they are using a trackingpoint type aiming system that will not allow them to fire until they have a designated target and are again on target in order to fire.

If they continue to engage in fire superiority, carrying less ammo will mean the necessity for for CAS, mortar, or artillery help when troops run out of ammo 10% faster because they are carrying 10% less or so.

The problem with TP type sighting systems is that they require being able to see the enemy in order to be effective. One of the frequently encountered problems of Allied combatants in Afghanistan, for example, is dealing with asymmetrical tactics by the opposition, often employing guerilla type tactics. Time and time again in battles, you have soldiers engaged in shooting in a general direction at a general target area because they don't know very well where the fire is actually coming from.

There will be battles where such optics will be helpful, no doubt, but a lot where they will not be helpful.

In other words, it sounds like they will need a lot of support from other platforms in order to field this new rifle.
__________________
"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 19, 2018, 01:47 AM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Point#1
10 grand for a military rifle? seriously???

Point #2

125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?

HOW???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 02:01 AM   #6
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?
Could possibly be done if one uses a powder blend with high compression-combustion curve. That would mean chamber pressures that potentially exceed SAAMI specs, by a large margin. I am sure wildcatters and folks that play around with the 6mm target and varmint loads have worked with these pressures and velocities before.

Not something that the military is interested in though. They want tools that can be picked up and put to use at once. Soldiers are soldiers. Not reloaders or bench-shooters who bring their entire kit onto the field and jot down all those readings/calculations/equations onto their logbooks.

I am interested to see where this is going to go with the Army. Are they going to cough up big $$$ to completely swap out a system that already works?
Rachen is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 09:02 AM   #7
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?

HOW???
No doubt using the same technological innovation that brought us SPIW, ACR, XM25, and XM-8.

Did I also mention the threshhold for barrel longevity was no more than a 10% degradation in accuracy after 10,000 rounds?

Putting aside the technological constraints, if they COULD manufacture such a rifle, a lot of our current small arms infantry tactics would have to change dramatically. Not the least of which is a system like this pretty much demands some advanced never before seen optics that overcome traditional human limitations in extended range engagements.

And with a noticeably smaller basic load and heavier ammo, fire discipline will play a much more important role.

Last but not least, room clearing in urban areas is going to be exciting with a round designed to penetrate any currently existing body armor at a distance of 600m. You pretty much have to throw the CQB book out entirely and start from scratch, or reduce your ammo load out even further with a reduced penetration ammo carried alongside your issue ammo.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 10:04 AM   #8
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Could possibly be done if one uses a powder blend with high compression-combustion curve. That would mean chamber pressures that potentially exceed SAAMI specs, by a large margin.
Can't really exceed SAAMI specs for a cartridge that hasn't been developed yet. There are no SAAMI specs for it.
__________________
"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 19, 2018, 10:57 AM   #9
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
As in the past, most will be killed by artillery, mines and air strikes in a major near-peer war.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 11:58 AM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
ok,
125gr bullet
3,500fps
16" barrel
no more then 10% loss of accuracy after 10,000 rounds

and all this for ONLY $10,000 a unit?

what. no spec that the total package weapon, sight and ammo has to be under 3kg??



Don't want much, do they.

The really scary part is that, since I'm pretty sure they still drug test these people, that means someone who wasn't stoned came up with these requirements...

wow...


and, forgive my fossil brain, but what does ACR mean if not Armored Cavalry Regiment?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 12:19 PM   #11
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
but what does ACR mean
Either Advanced Combat Rifle or Automatic Combat Rifle.

Quote:
Can't really exceed SAAMI specs for a cartridge that hasn't been developed yet. There are no SAAMI specs for it.
Ah okay. I thought they were toying around with a preexisting cartridge and doing some necking down or resizing. Now I am even a bit more worried about next year's tax rates.

Quote:
As in the past, most will be killed by artillery, mines and air strikes in a major near-peer war.
If ya' really want to win the war, gotta get boots on the ground. China learned that pretty hard during the 1978-1981 Vietnam border war. PLA first strategy was to expel the Viet incursions that were already on Chinese territory (Guangxi and Guangdong) and leave it at that, but the Viets continued the harassment and shelling until Phase 2 had to be adopted and expeditionary forces, with a boar snout made up of tanks, was sent thundering deep into Vietnam. The intention was not to permanently occupy but send a clear message to the Viet government that the PLA is now holding your entire border region and is advancing towards your capital. So better think fast.

Arty and air force's job is to clear the way and turn enemy resistance into pavement. Their goal is to make life easier for the grunts who do the final planting of the flag.
Rachen is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 12:48 PM   #12
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
And most of the casualties of the grunts will be caused by artillery, mines and air support.

If we fight China (god forbid), the round in the grunt rifle will be trivial as if we engage in serious infantry combat anywhere they can deploy major infantry forces, the losses will be horrendous. The same will happen for the sea battles.

The whole debate is silly, IMHO. We go through this every few years and our problems are not the rifle round when it comes to equipment issues.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 01:37 PM   #13
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
and our problems are not the rifle round when it comes to equipment issues.
From our viewpoint, that is true. But it seems to be in the nature of governments to be hard-headed, narrow-minded, and sometimes quite wasteful and resistant to hearing of other folks' inputs. The main topic of this discussion would be why would the military make such a drastic change in it's equipment roster when everything that is being used currently is pretty much working.

The new generations of M-16s/M-4s are not jamming or fouling like they were doing in 'Nam. Nobody is complaining that the 5.56 is wimpy or underpowered. And we are certainly not experiencing another dramatic revolution in small arms tech that it is necessary to adapt as fast as possible. (The last one was the development of smokeless powder. Entire factories and their tooling had to be changed in order to start making the new nitro-proofed actions, barrels and cartridges.)


Oh and BTW, fights between superpowers are not good for anyone. Not good at all. If it ever really gets that bad, they better resolve it with something like that was portrayed in Robot Jox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox). Otherwise the roaches and crustaceans may become the new masters of the world.

Last edited by Rachen; November 19, 2018 at 01:43 PM.
Rachen is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 08:31 PM   #14
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Quote:
why would the military make such a drastic change in it's equipment roster when everything that is being used currently is pretty much working.
This is brought up every time the military looks at changing its materiel. We don't need those new fangled repeaters, all they'll do is let the troops waste ammo...etc.....

Until the other side makes a change, that proves to be some level of improvement, at which point we play catch up, and try to start the research that will eventually let us get ahead, again. Tis why they call it an arms race.

Quote:
Nobody is complaining that the 5.56 is wimpy or underpowered.
Actually, it seems that more than a few people are complaining, and combat vets, at that. They just aren't being listened to, much, and its not the dramatic center stage issue it was during Viet Nam.

More than a few will tell you how they routinely had to shoot insurgents two, three or more times before they were stopped. But this is often dismissed as A) just poor shooting, or more often B) the "video game effect". Modern youth, "trained" on video games expects the bad guy to go down from one hit. Every time. That's the way the game works. SO, when this doesn't happen in the real world, they think stopping power is lacking.

pretty sure there is some truth on both sides. We know (through testing) that one kind of 5.56mm ammo, when fired from the short barrel carbines, loses the velocity needed for full performance beyond 200yds or so.

I think its really rather pointless to discuss potential tactical changes that would be brought about by the "dream rifle" until we know what that dream rifle and its round actually DO in the real world.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 19, 2018, 08:39 PM   #15
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
...
I think its really rather pointless to discuss potential tactical changes that would be brought about by the "dream rifle" until we know what that dream rifle and its round actually DO in the real world.
We’ve seen it in movies, and in larger naval weapons.
Phasers and Railguns.
Higher power densities and more precision equipment = deader targets at longer ranges in fewer shots.
Just compare the 5.56 or .308 capabilities of today with those of 100 years ago.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 10:55 AM   #16
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
100 years ago - 30.06s and 303s were the Allied rounds for the most part.

It's true that every advance might be seen as bad by the powers that be. However, you need a rationale for a change. You might not know that in the 1900's there was a tremendous debate of whether battleships should become all torpedo with only minor guns. It was debate about naval tech.

The move to have tons of AA missiles on destroyer, frigate classes in our times made them unable fight any seaborne opponent. That is being worked on.

The question is whether this expense is going to generate a workable solution to a real problem. There were lots of airplane prototypes that were never built as their techy solution turned out to be useless. Look at the F-108s.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 11:24 AM   #17
Don Fischer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2017
Posts: 1,868
When they get all done, at the end of the day, what they will find out is that they aren't gonna discover anything new that will do what even the Mi carbine didn't do. That is kill people. The carbine did that very well!
Don Fischer is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 11:26 AM   #18
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,485
I understand there has been some combat use of the 6.8 SPC.
Is it more effective than 5.56?
Jim Watson is online now  
Old November 20, 2018, 12:22 PM   #19
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Is it more effective.....

there are so many variables I think it tough to answer at this point.

What is "more effective", any way? more dead than dead? dead sooner?

This kind of question always makes me think of a scene from The WAR WAGON, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas both draw and shoot bad guys at the same time. Douglas brags. "mine hit the ground first!!"
Wayne replies, "mine was taller."

I think bigger bullets tend to work better, but defining "effective" depends on where you set your standards.

I could argue that a better word to use would be "efficient" but my argument probably won't be that effective....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 12:27 PM   #20
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Should be looking for a reliable bullpup configuration that fires a a round that does a lot of damage up close and out beyond 500. Most combat is urban now right? Bullpup is a different manual of arms, but a longer barrel in a shorter package? Seems the best possible outcome.

But bullpups have reliability issues I’ve heard. Though my understanding of AUGs is that they are quality weapons. I’m not much of a ballistics guy. But I know that the since the First World War they have always wanted a gun that you can carry more ammo in a smaller package that shoots reliably all day. And they want it to do the deed quickly. Had a friend who was a marine who hated the 249 and loved the 240 because the round was more effective to him. :shrug:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 01:10 PM   #21
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
Most combat is urban now right?
Is it? Is that why troops are complaining that their M4s aren't effective at the long ranges they have to be shooting them?
__________________
"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 20, 2018, 02:30 PM   #22
Rachen
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2006
Location: Weekend cowboy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Should be looking for a reliable bullpup configuration that fires a a round that does a lot of damage up close and out beyond 500. Most combat is urban now right? Bullpup is a different manual of arms, but a longer barrel in a shorter package? Seems the best possible outcome.
The Chinese PLA has been using a bullpup design since 1997. The original QBZ-95 fired the Chinese specific 5.8mm cartridge. It's ballistics were similar to the 5.56 and the 5.8 appears to be more squat, almost "fat" if you will. The reasoning behind this was that troops can carry more ammo in a battle load.

The upgraded QBZ-95s that were issued after 2004 and the QBZ-03 (non-bullpup) were built in both 5.56 and 7.62x39 calibers. I have seen on the CCTV documentaries that the QBZ-03 even has an interchangeable upper that can be swapped from 7.62x39 to 5.56 with just a few turns of a knob. No tools required. The PLA has fought it's own War on Terror for quite a while now, starting with the Viet border raids to Islamic insurrectionists in Xinjiang. It seems that for the regular trooper, both calibers are used equally in urban combat and police work. Squads, within both the PLA and the Wujing (armed police) have designated marksmen equipped with modern bolt-action and semiauto 7.62x54R for dealing with threats at longer range. Unlike American and western SWAT teams, Wujing are organized by squad and fire team just like a combat troop. And they also do regular street patrols, with full kit.

Quote:
I think bigger bullets tend to work better, but defining "effective" depends on where you set your standards.
Quote:
Just compare the 5.56 or .308 capabilities of today with those of 100 years ago.
Look even farther back. The .58 caliber minie balls used in the US Civil War were undeniably effective fight stoppers. I don't think anyone hit with a minie ball kept on going. The .45-70's used after the rifled musket was replaced also packed tremendous stopping power. Only problem was ammo capacity and speed of reloading in combat.

Bigger bullets always work better in conventional terms. The .58 minie only has to travel at 1200 feet/sec to slam something with the force of a sledgehammer. Smaller bullets, to compensate for their lighter mass, has to have high velocity. Incidentally we have a running thread now in the hunting forums about using tiny bullets at blistering high speed to whack whitetails with hydrostatic shock as the main lethal mechanism.
Rachen is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 04:26 PM   #23
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy View Post
Is it? Is that why troops are complaining that their M4s aren't effective at the long ranges they have to be shooting them?


A rephrase is in order. More conflict is in urban settings. But if you can choose between a longer or shorter rifle and everything else is equal? Hypothetically of course... shorter is better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 04:35 PM   #24
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
What Would the Army’s Dream Rifle Mean for Tactics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachen View Post
The Chinese PLA has been using a bullpup design since 1997. The original QBZ-95 fired the Chinese specific 5.8mm cartridge. It's ballistics were similar to the 5.56 and the 5.8 appears to be more squat, almost "fat" if you will. The reasoning behind this was that troops can carry more ammo in a battle load.



The upgraded QBZ-95s that were issued after 2004 and the QBZ-03 (non-bullpup) were built in both 5.56 and 7.62x39 calibers. I have seen on the CCTV documentaries that the QBZ-03 even has an interchangeable upper that can be swapped from 7.62x39 to 5.56 with just a few turns of a knob. No tools required. The PLA has fought it's own War on Terror for quite a while now, starting with the Viet border raids to Islamic insurrectionists in Xinjiang. It seems that for the regular trooper, both calibers are used equally in urban combat and police work. Squads, within both the PLA and the Wujing (armed police) have designated marksmen equipped with modern bolt-action and semiauto 7.62x54R for dealing with threats at longer range. Unlike American and western SWAT teams, Wujing are organized by squad and fire team just like a combat troop. And they also do regular street patrols, with full kit.











Look even farther back. The .58 caliber minie balls used in the US Civil War were undeniably effective fight stoppers. I don't think anyone hit with a minie ball kept on going. The .45-70's used after the rifled musket was replaced also packed tremendous stopping power. Only problem was ammo capacity and speed of reloading in combat.



Bigger bullets always work better in conventional terms. The .58 minie only has to travel at 1200 feet/sec to slam something with the force of a sledgehammer. Smaller bullets, to compensate for their lighter mass, has to have high velocity. Incidentally we have a running thread now in the hunting forums about using tiny bullets at blistering high speed to whack whitetails with hydrostatic shock as the main lethal mechanism.


Yep. I’ve heard about them. My understanding of bull pups is that they are just a bit more complicated. But I don’t see really any other way to get a longer barrel in a shorter package. I always wondered about upscaling the p90. :shrug:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by stonewall50; November 20, 2018 at 04:43 PM.
stonewall50 is offline  
Old November 20, 2018, 07:20 PM   #25
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
Quote:
But if you can choose between a longer or shorter rifle and everything else is equal? Hypothetically of course... shorter is better
The problem there is the aspect of "hypothetically." When has there been longer and shorter rifles where everything else was equal?

In this case, not only is it not going to be equal, but the military is expecting higher performance which will introduce a lot more unequal aspects.
__________________
"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  
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 11:03 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 0.12465 seconds with 8 queries