– Christian
April 21st, 2008 | Defense Tech Poll | 279860 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fdefensetech.org%2F2008%2F04%2F21%2Fthis-is-just-begging-for-a-poll%2FThis+is+just+begging+for+a+poll...2008-04-21+13%3A44%3A20Wardhttp%3A%2F%2Fdeftech.usmilblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D2798
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Why am I not suprised at the way this voting is going? Just shows that there’s alot of thinkers here.
Well, coolhand77, what do YOU think?
The dissatisfied dead soldiers don’t respond to surveys.
p.s. I voted to “ditch the colt.”
Any new gun which is not chambered in a new more effective round is a total waist of time & money.
Every weapon SHOULD be properly maintained for optimum performance. The M-16/M4 just happens to provide emphasis on this due to how relatively poorly it performs (compared to other designs/actions) when not properly maintained.
Sounds like it’s time for the 6.5 Grendel to start getting some airtime. It’s a better around than the 6.8 both close-in and an far out, and has a better ballistic coefficient and terminal ballistics than the 7.62 Nato.
The military’s wanted a single “do everything” round for the longest time. If there’s going to be a round to do it, it’s going to be the Grendel. The only thing holding it back is that it doesn’t have the support of as many major companies as the 6.8 does, and so it isn’t well known.
Still, I think that’s the round that our next weapon needs to be chambered in.
I think they need to explore the current possibilities that are better and possibly less expensive than the M4, not to mention a weapon that with the swap out of the fewest parts can be converted from the anemic 5.56 to something with a little more oomph like 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, or even the 7.62×39 when the indiginous ammo consists of that cartridge.
BTW, with a barrel and bolt swap you can change the Bushmaster ACR from 5.56 to 6.5 G or 6.8 SPC, and add a lower swap to the equation and it can feed AK pattern mags so it expands to 5.45 and 7.62×39. And its done with the integrated latching system and captured push pins instead of special or separate tools. Magpul also has a 7.62 NATO version in the works. It also uses some stock AR parts, so that will reduce production costs, and its fully ambidexterous. Yes it can be done. And as far as I know its lighter than the SCAR.
I would like to see a shoot off between the ACR, the SCAR, the 416, the G36/XM8, the XCR (Robinson Arms), the product improved M4, and anyone else. Let the best rifle win.
I agree that a new round is in order too, and with its versitility a weapon LIKE the ACR that doesn’t need an armorer (or an act of congress) to change caliber’s is the way to go.
BTW Christian, I try not to think, it only gets me in more trouble ;-)
im begging to think it is impossible to have a round that “does it all” like its not possible to have a planes that are both good fighters and bombers. i think a weapon that can change bolts, barrels and cailbers for the sitituation would be the best solution.
Time to ditch the Colt, the 5.56 and any SAW in that round.
6.8mm or 6.5mm, which ever is better.
And whatever weapon works better and can be fielded in different configurations. Shorter barrels for drivers/track commanders to longer squad marksman version and everything in-between.
It must have the ability to be flexible without all the mods the m-16 needed.
The Masada or whatever they call it now seems to be the weapon. It can also be easily changed to different calibers.
We then can come up with a quick change barrel version that uses a C mag and ditch the use of belts with smaller ammo which never made sense to me. That would make a better SAW, even if they make open bolt firing. Parts and ammo quickly interchange. That would save a lot of money and need for the weapons to be unavailable due to the armorer needing to fix the things.
While we’re there we can ditch the useless 9mm and go with a .40 or 10mm and a new side arm to go with it. make a version the the rifle as a SMG with a lot of interchangeable parts. So many soldiers do not need a full sized rifle. this one size fits all mentality the army has is wrong and every war we fought since the Civil war has proved it.
All those things make too much sense. By the time they figure it out someone will have invented a laser weapon made by Colt.
Time to ditch the 5.56 and switch over to a more robust feed system. I like the idea of going to
the 6.8 SPC or better yet the 7.62×39. We need something that can take dirt and dust and continue to fire when called upon. Put them all in REAL competition, bury them in an Iraqi sand and dust pile, rinse with a canteen of water, put in a full mag, select full auto (or burst) and pull the trigger. If it fires it passes. Do it with a batch of 5 rifles from each manufacturer selected at random by an independent testing firm and we’ll see who’s standing at the end of the day. My money would be on anything but the M4/M16.
Better yet why don’t you let a bunch or mid-grade line NCO’s and squad leaders do the test and tell you what THEY want.
5.56 works just fine, have a problem with the terminal ballistics? chances are you missed! I’ve shot thousands of rounds out of both an M16-A4 and an M-4 without a misfire. I cleaned my rifle as often as I was able during the battle for fallujah and my second tour there a year later. stop asking the round to do things a combat rifle round can’t do- you won’t get a one hitter quitter round from 7 yards away, remember a carbine is a compromise. sure it would be great to be able to carry a .50 cal round out of the carbine, but you’d have to carry 200 rds of it into battle. the 5.56 won’t be the one shot one kill round out at 500 yards, past 220 yds out of an A4 barrel the round won’t tumble and break like it’s designed too. sure it would be great to have a round that homed in on the target and instantly neutralized it as soon as it appeared, but in reality you need a round that will do some real damage from 100 yds in the one time out of 20 that you will actually hit your target. that round is the 5.56 mm nato. the m4 is the most reliable, hearty rifle that shoots that round out there right now for the price.
Except that it doesn’t work. It’s servicemen themselves who complain most often about how weak the 5.56 round is. It was Army SF guys that originally designed the 6.8 SPC round to try to mitigate this problem.
It’s also servicemen, once again SF, that complain about how unreliable and prone to jamming the M4 are. So, while I’m sure you’re proud of your gear and how you’ve used it, there’s too many professionals in your same field that are unsatisfied with it for us to simply ignore.
Regarding the Colt M4 and its gas system, Colt has a piston system, but the procurers are still (Army) waffling.
And yes, a new mid-caliber is needed. I understand the 6.8 has been used in A’Stan, and proven more effective than the 5.56.
A hindrance to changing calibers at this time is that factories are totally committed to producing 5.56, and there is no reserve capacity to take off-line to convert to the new caliber. Back in the 1960′s there were a number of ammo plants, so changing to 5.56 wasn’t so disruptive. NOW, there is [b]one[/b] gov’t ammo plant, so shutting down to change over would disrupt supplies of 5.56.
We already have a midpower cartridge that stays supersonic past 1000 yards out of a 20 inch barrel(retains energy better than the 5.56 AND the 7.62 NATO) is flat shooting, uses a heavier bullet than the 5.56, and has similar terminal ballistics to the 6.8 SPC. Its called the 6.5 Grendel. It will work in current rifles and with the modularity of many of the newer platforms (ACR, XCR, SCAR) is easily fed into the available weapons.
Basically it can do anything the 6.8 can do, and hit at about twice the range given the same barrel length. Sure, its not as good as some of the newer high power cartridges, but it extends your engagement envelope past the current 300 (M4) and 500 (M16) point engagement ranges (not including machinegun suppressive fire) out of a weapon of the same size and weight form to our current primary rifles/carbines, without significantly increasing recoil or decreasing ammo capacity (both in magazine and ammo carried by the individual soldier).
5.56 is as good a round as the next. It has it’s high points and it’s low points. I wouldn’t change it for something that just gives you different trade offs if for no other reason than it’s what everyone is trained on already.
The M16/M4 has it’s problems and some correction in them might be in order. There are a number of weapons like the hk416 that will allow for quick spin up and not require a hard cut over in the weapons units use for the most part.
Having said all this, if someone can come up with a weapon system that is significantly better I say look at it. But it has to be better enough to make up for the issues involved in replacing everything we have already. For example Caseless ammo, (You can carry twice as much caseless, by size, weight and mag cap.)
they already held a competition …all other 5.56 rifles in the world judge themselves by the oringinal Eugene Stoner Action ….its a tactical issue , The M-16/M-4 is like a Lego set ( You can do anything with it ! ) …you all want a bigger cartridge ….tell that to the troops that gotta hump the stuff for long distances ….it will take any other rifle /carbine a long time to catch up to the M-16/M-4 ,and put down more bad guys than M-16/M-4 shooters have … probably never will happen in this lifetime .
Hats off to a Man way ahead of his time
they already held a competition …all other 5.56 rifles in the world judge themselves by the oringinal Eugene Stoner Action ….its a tactical issue , The M-16/M-4 is like a Lego set ( You can do anything with it ! ) …you all want a bigger cartridge ….tell that to the troops that gotta hump the stuff for long distances ….it will take any other rifle /carbine a long time to catch up to the M-16/M-4 ,and put down more bad guys than M-16/M-4 shooters have … probably never will happen in this lifetime .
Hats off to a Man way ahead of his time
It is time to admit that the 5.56 rounds (which was designed to injure not kill) is not the round for this conflict. The thought by the bean counters was that if you injure someone it will take two troops to get them off the field. The problem is if you are dealing with extremist or coked up nut jobs. For these you need to drop them PERMANTLY!! So I say go back to the 7.62 and enjoy the recoil!
PS my fav weapon I carried is the German G3 with scope. Heavy but deadly
Soooooo coolhand77, do you have stock in a Grendel factory somewhere?
Seriously though the magazine “Special Weapons for Military and Police 2005″ had a comparative article on the 6.8 vs. 6.5. On most points the 6.5 won. HOWEVER, the shape of the case of the 6.5 does not permit it to be used with current belt-fed systems. Curiously, the article declares the 6.8 the winner.
One other observation: The SF folks designed the 6.8 presumably after searching and rejecting currently available rounds. I assume (read ass-u-me) this included the 6.5. The people who pull the trigger rejected the 6.5.
This is an argument that has been around since the conversion from rocks to lances! Every weapon has it’s limits and abilities. It all should come down to the need to succeed on the battlefiled….what will it take to win, give an advantage to the trooper who only has a rock (or piece of plastic in his hand).
Obvioulsy for every grunt their is the weight issue and the terrain to be considered. Certainly all could agree that the requirements are different in the barren mountains of Afganistan vs the jungles of Vietnam. As always the maxim of being able to see them and kill them must prevail. The rock of yesteryear was bypassed with the first throw of the lance in killing power. We should not stop looking for the device to bypass the lance.
Has there been a military spec 6.5mm Grendel developed or if everyone STILL comparing the BENCH/MATCH (match grade brass & bullet) 6.5mm Grendel to the military spec 6.8mm SPC?
Except that the 5.56 *isn’t* as good as any other round, and doesn’t have it’s good points and bad points.
The only good points it has are that it’s very small and light, so you can carry more ammo, and it’s recoil is very manageable. Neither of those outweighs it’s severe lack of range and hitting power.
With all due respect to the soldiers posting in this thread, SF guys disagree with you, so I’m going to go with what they say.
Likewise, the Stoner Action, M4/m16, is *not* the benchmark against which all other rifles test themselves against. The fact that Delta helped design the HK416 is proof of how substandard and obsolete the original AR system is. It isn’t like a lego set. It’s finicky, hard to maintain, and lacks the modularity that things like the XCR, Masada, and FN SCAR have.
The arguement that we shouldn’t spend a ton of money getting a new weapon is also bogus: Colt’s charging us 1500 dollars per rifle. We were *already* going to spend a ton of money on a weapon: The M4.
We might as well find a better rifle while we’re at it, if the money’s going to be spent anyway. We’re not saving anything by keeping the M4.
For those of you who’re obsessed with only using “Tried and True” weapons, that pretty much narrows down the choices to the SCAR or the 416, either of which would be far superior combat rifles for our fighting men, compared to the M4.
Delta and the Green Berets say so, and I’m inclined to believe them.
First of all, no, I don’t even own a Grendel (wish I did though). Second, you are getting your info from a gun rag? Puhleeze. Yes, there is a “belt feed issue” with the Grendel. Excuse me, but arn’t the marines looking at getting away from belt feed with their IAR proposal? Yes there would have to be retooling of various weapons to feed it, but you have to do some changes to them anyway to use the 6.8. As far as I know, nobody has developed a belt fed 6.8 yet either. Oh, and the SF guys DID develop it, but they used flawed numbers with their prototypes. Nobody has been able to safely duplicate the numbers that people keep touting with the 6.8 outside of remington…oh wait, they couldn’t do it either. The 6.5G has duplicatable performance.
No, there is not a “milspec” version of the 6.5G yet, I am sorry to say. Unfortunately the people in charge of that project seem to be adverse to actually giving us what we have asked for. That is not to say that the lessons learned from the 6.5 could not be applied to various small arms. I belive there is a 6.5 SCC cartridge that comes close to a midpoint between the 6.8 and 6.5 by using a similar case (though shortened) to the 6.8, with a high BC 6.5 projectile. I could be wrong about that, but its worth looking into. Short stubby bullets just don’t fly as far as long skinny ones. Its a matter of ballistics.
Oh and 6.5 Grendel has been suffering from a bad case of Not Invented Here Syndrome, just like many other innovations that they US military refuses to field/aquire
Oh, and not all the ammo for 6.5 out there is “bench/match”. At least I wouldn’t call Wolf brand a match cartridge.
coolhand77,
What I am getting at is that the 6.8mm SPC is a military cartridge. It was conceived by a U.S. Special Operations soldier for the expressed purpos to improve the terminal ballistics of the M4 Carbine. The 6.5mm Grendel is a match/competition cartridge for hunting, competition & long range tactical applications. The Sierra Match King & Lapua Scenar bullets so often cited to demonstrate the 6.5mm Grendel’s supposed superiority are Hollow Point Boat Tail MATCH GRADE bullets!
I don’t doubt the 6.5mm Grendel’s superior long-range ballistics but for a military (carbine) cartridge, terminal ballistics at 300m or less is MUCH more important than 500-1000m external ballistics.
Load the 6.5mm Grendel with an “acceptable” military bullet & its BC drops from the .510 of the 123 gr Sierra Match King or .547 of the 123 gr Lapua Scenar to ~.425 (still notably better than the .325 of the 115 gr 6.8mm but not as HUGE a the match grade bullets).
At the beginning, I practiced the rank to be very low, therefore I must spent more 2moons dil to buy the high-quality weapon.
My friends in order to help me, send me much Requiem gold, I was very thank him.
Anyone bought from http://www.belrion.com before ? heard they are a paypal world seller and are macfee
seucred. Appreciate some feedback from anyone ^^
Why am I not suprised at the way this voting is going? Just shows that there’s alot of thinkers here.
Why am I not suprised at the way this voting is going? Just shows that there’s alot of thinkers here.
Master, I am really very think of you, what a pity that we as if already parted forever. Now, I buy Habbo gold for your come back.
If your attitude to me can be slightly good, I will be having much happiness, although I only was 89 levels and I only have some cheap Lord of the Rings Gold
However, if it is also under the free name, charge the massive fee to blackmail us, let us buy Hellgate Palladium to continue this game, I will not play this game forever.
The husband, for you, I will want to adjust myself diligently and I will make cheap lastchaos gold.
If I cannot complete the duty, I will spend many hero gold and have no anything to receive.
Actually I hoped that other come to buy mabinogi gold for their hurts.
All imvu gold are used up by you because your waste.
Of course the Metin2 yang can bring funs. I believed that you will love this Metin2 gold new game.
If you want to Buy metin2 gold you can go to the company. I hope that we will become good friends in the Cheap metin2 gold game.
The problem with introducing a new weapon system comes from the same logistics brat.
I think historically in US the logistics generals have always had too much power. Too much opposition to new vital tools for the troops. And of course too much politics.
Remember ww2?
US Army got a valuable lesson in Africa. The Sherman with the short gun and piss poor armor, was just target for the most German tanks and tank destroyers and totally hopeless vs Tigers and Panthers that were showing up in higher numbers.
With all this they still sent the Shermans with the short gun during Overlord and kept loosing 5 tanks for every German tank destroyed, up to the end of the war.
Same lessons with the .50 cals in fighters.
During WW2 every other nation started employing cannons because of the advantages the explosive shells presented. Nevertheless USAF went to Korea with the “regular six fifties”, and pilots all of a sudden starting shooting all their ammo into the Mig without getting a kill.
By the time USAF switched to 20mm already everybody else went for heavier calibers, this days 27mm-30mm is the norm in all other air forces for Fighter gun.
Now back to the 5.56mm. It was designed to shoot rabbits. What is this thing doing in combat against 160-200lbs targets?
How hard would be to start from scaratch. Forget everything that is in service and start fresh.
design new cartridge for the targets you are going to shoot, then design a rifle around it.
Too many logistics are holding the progress. make sure the next gun will be able to use the M4 magazines, make sure it can use the M4 stock, make sure it looks just like the m4 that the soldiers are so familiar with…….
With all this things to hold it back you’ll never be able to come up with anything too different then the M4/M16.
The 5.56 is clearly a lousy caliber for shooting humans, the M4/M16 is an old design, with enough shortcomings and is time for both to go.
I think is time to start fresh and build a new system from ground up. Sure is going to cost a bit more but the M4′s are not cheap either.
The balistics of the 6.8 spec. are a bit disapointing. The 6.5 Grendel has some advantage but because they didn’t want to go over the total lenght of the 5.56mm, the case ended up too fat. I’d rather make that case a bit longer and thinner and maintain the balistics. Screw the M4 mags.
buenisimo
buenisimo