I just got some information on the Heckler and Koch bid for the Marine Corps Infantry Automatic Rifle.
You can see the picture here and below, check out the stats:
IAR specs
To me, it basically looks like a 416 with a longer barrel and more robust butt stock. I will say that troops love the H&K box magazines for their lack of hangups in when feeding on burst fire.
Thing is, I hope the deck isn’t stacked against FN and H&K because of Colt’s submission of two weapons. I have absolutely nothing against Colt or its IAR variants (though for some reason they declined to provide me with any details of their weapons for DT or Military.com), I just for once want to see a free and fair competition for the Corps’ new version of the BAR (though in 5.56, much to many’s chagrin)…Without any ole boy networking or bias.
We’ll see though, huh?
– Christian
{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }
5.56 still? Hell, why don’t they just go with the .17 Remington?
Currently the Only Project looking into the Possibility of a bigger cartridge is the US ARMY’s Carbine evaluation. the Marines tend too be more conservative then the PEO Guy’s.
I am really wondering what the FN IAR is, as I have seen the Colt one and too be honest I have not been impressed with colt for a long time and they did not change that opinion yet.
the Colt submision
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1186
Two things need improving:
A. Use drum mags (one reason for the IAR was because belts get caught up on obstacles) drum mags would allow less reloads and no belt to get snagged.
B. Have it shoot a bigger round. Right now there isn’t enough inprovement in the weapon to replace the M249′s with it, it’s not worth the money.
Here’s a revolutionary idea. Why don’t they chamber it for 7.62×39 and allow it to accept AK magazines? Since these are probably the most widespread rounds and magazines in the world, it would allow emergency use of enemy ammunition in case our soldiers run out of supply during a firefight and can’t be re-supplied.
No one wants to use enemy equipment, but it’s nice to have the option if you REALLY need it.
Christian;
From all I’ve read from you and Matthew, I’m sure Colt won’t get any un-fair advantage. You guys will keep shilling for H&K. That should level the playing field.
What no laser weapons?
3 step ahead 5 steps behind.
Wrong round, wrong concept, the M249 needs replacing but with two different weapons. One should be the new MK48 which is a 7.62 version and would bridge the gap between the M240 and a squad auto. The next is the very good Ultimax 100 which is a very user friendly weapon with great full auto controllability, light weight and flexibility as far as barrel, magazine and it is a true squad automatic from it’s original design.
But all this is non sense when you are still using the anemic pea shooter 5.56 round. It has no ability to penetrate any cover. The use of a squad automatic is to keep the heads down of the enemy so you can maneuver, the other is to chase them out from under light cover and concealment.
Or are my basic infantry tactics incorrect?
The 5.56 round cannot do that. The 7.62 can, the 6.8 or 6.5 can probably also.
I hope for either the HK or or the FN. Nothing against Colt, but I think that a robust piston is the way to go in this case.
G.I. Joe….what the heck are you talking about? I’ve been shilling for FN, man! Don’t you read my stuff? Jeez, if you’re going to insult me, at least do your research…
These specs are very close to the specs of the HK 416. The only significant difference appears to be the weight of a weapon with the shortest barrel.
Are the Army & the Marines talking to each other? It does not make sense for the Marines to buy IARs that will not use, or be easy to convert to, the same ammunition as the M4 replacement.
Those of you who are complaining about the choice for the 5.56 round, remember logistics is a key limiter right now, no one wants to be in the scenario where the one wielding the IAR is out of 7.62 6.5 whatever and everyone else has 5.56 mags, especially as a designated SAW guy. Makes a ton of sense to get rid of the 5.56 round, but right now it obviously isn’t going to happen…yet.
FoxThree,
Simple solution, it is not like we are not looking for something to replace the M4 & M16 as well. Just have THOSE replacements chambered in the same cartridge as the IAR. It is not like we have NEVER changed cartridges before…
Why the U.S. seems to be sticking with the 5.56?
Simply, because all major U.S. allies use that round (NATO standard, STANAG 4172). A really simple way to further show the U.S. doesn’t actually listen to its partners would be to make a unilateral switch to another cartridge.
Like what happened with the 7.62×57? Britain and the other european NATO members were looking at intermediae rounds such as .260 size cartridges when the US up and went for a shortened .30-06 so they could keep the same barrel rifling equipment, without any consultation with the european NATO partners. Meaning Nato was stuck with a heavy round rather than the intermediate cartridge the euro wanted. then to add insult to injury, the US ditched the 7.62 for the 5.56, which went Too light, again ignoring the euro preference for an intermediate cartridge.
The US is the single most influential cartridge decider in NATO, mainly due to the sheer size and military power. but the US powers that be have used that too many times to ram through what suits them, not what suits NATO as a whole.
What is the problem with the 7.62x51mm round? Is it too big? It would still be a standard, high availability round, with enough power to satisfy the troops (and then some) and it would make every soldier into a potential designated marksman. I think with the 20 round magazines on the AR-10, they won’t expend the ammo any faster than with a 30 round AR-15. I think the logical choice here is to just switch to the AR-10, which is ironic since the AR-15 was based on a 7.62x51mm design.
Those ridges look like they would hurt your hand after a short while. Can’t assume that gloves will always be worn.
Is it just me, or does this gun look like Han Solo’s Laser Pistol from Starwars?
(Hide the stock, the mag and barrel and it looks like it)
I remember reading somewhere that H&K had made a 50 round drum magazine for the 417, that seems like a perfect solution to most of the problems
Why is it that in EVERY discussion on EVERY gun blog there are people whining about the 5.56? By now (it was introduced over 4 decades ago) we all know of its deficiencies, but obviously the US is going to stick with it. As are ALL NATO countries. Maybe it’s logistics, or maybe simply because we were the ones that sold NATO on the 5.56, so it would be kind of crappy to go back on our actions. Yes, there are negatives about the round, but there are positives too. Weight is a big thing. It doesn’t matter as much when you are armed with M4 and it’s magazines. However, it does make a difference when carrying the SAW. When 600 rounds of SAW ammo weigh as much 300 or so rounds of 7.62. Everyone loves to bring up how great the 7.62×39 Soviet round is, but that has drawbacks, too, such as over penetration on personnel. Everyone seems to forget that even the Russians replaced it with 5.56, because they saw the advantages of 5.56. I’m not saying the disadvantages of the 5.56 aren’t there and shouldn’t be discussed. Just stop whining on and on and on about it in every single article posted about a weapon that is chambered for it.
I think 5.56 is realy obsolete 6.8spc/6,5 grendel has all the advantages discounting the weight thingy, and has a better stopping power and cover penetration.The weight issue can be solved with plastic cases.Brass is simply obsolete.(Howewer, i must note that brass is cheaper than high grade plastics)
16" barell 50 round drum mags everyone is happy.Logistics is also an issue but 5.56 is old.
I believe that the 5.56 needs and the Marines should actually use a modified ACR because saw gunners could run out of ammo really fast so the modified ACR should also have a C-mag it has 100 rounds and if more firepower is nedded the gunner could change to 6.5/6.8 and if it runs out of ammo use some ammo from dead enimies.
Those “ridges” are Picatinny rails for extras. Such a rifle would get a fore grip and a bipod at the very least – attached to the rails.
It is just plain stupid. If marines don’t switch for HK416, the strongest factor of this Assault Rifle badly disguised as IAR (c’mon, the barrel seems to be standard, not heavy) – components commonality with standard AR – disappears.
I can be wrong, but it seems to me a plain fake of a competition. I-just-don’t-believe that any other than colt has any chance of being elected.
As I said some days before, the only TRUE IAR candidate was ultimax mk 4 or 5. Once again, american soldiers are going to be equipped with suboptimal equipment.
Shame on you, DoD bureaucrats and colt lobbysts
To Jeff M:
I’m a huge fan of the 7.62×51 (I even use .308 to hunt). The biggest reported drawback is it’s lower ammo count, but if you have to double-pump every target with 5.56, that makes the point moot.
The other drawback is heavy recoil, especially in full auto. I can definitely see their point, but I think a lot of that concern comes from political correctness. They know their political task masters back in Washington are chomping at the bit to get women in combat, and 5.56 can usually be handled by most women, while .308 is a bit much for the ladies.
Once again, American troops getting the shaft to keep the DC fat cats happy.
“Why is it that in EVERY discussion on EVERY gun blog there are people whining about the 5.56?”
-Because it’s an adapted varmint round that was used for a cold war strategy and no longer fits the modern need. It truly is the weakest link in the chain. It’s great and all if your rifle is light, dependable, and rugged, but if you can’t count on it bringing down the enemy with a triangle hit, you simply can’t depend on it. Plus the fact that there are better alternatives out there.
I think the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC are good tradeoff cartridges that balance power with weight, but, as pfcem said, it’s only feasible if all squad weapons are chambered for it concurrently.
This is a SAW replacement? light short barrel, closed bolt, low listed ROF? Really?
I love the idea of a magazine fed weapon but I don’t think this weapon has the sustained ROF you need for an automatic rifle. Maybe I am missing something, I know there are a few weapons out there that now will fire from both open and closed bolt, if this is one of them then the stats above are very misleading.
AFAIK, the IAR isn’t a “replacement” for the SAW. According to the MARINE CORPS TIMES at http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/09/marine_iar_091308/:
“Marine officials are adamant the SAW is not going away. The M249 will remain in use by the rest of the Corps and will be available to Marine infantry commanders if they feel they need more firepower, Cantwell [a USMC spokesman] said.
The plan is to buy 4,100 IARs and reduce the number of SAWs in the Corps from 10,000 to 8,000, Cantwell said.
‘We are still going to maintain SAWs in the company,
“it’s going to take multiple hits or a tight “beaten zone” to take down a well armored opponent. We’re not facing those yet, but it may not be too far away”
The problem with 5.56 is that it’s taking multiple hits to take down an unarmored enemy. Plus, incidents of multiple sternum hits leaving an enemy ambulatory are all too common.
Here’s a great article against 5.56 for those who want further reading material:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/the_last_big_lie_of_vietnam_ki.html
It really strike me that this is all an interim choice of sorts. With all the talk of developing replacements to M4/M16 with the potential change to other ammunition being an open possibility, it seems that ammunition choice of the IAR will quickly become moot when ever that other decision is made.
I can’t argue against the fundamental need to develop a better round but the simple fact on the discussion of the 5.56 round is that it kills and it does kill well. While the argument for something more powerful or deadly can be made, it is hard to justify with out a truly noticeable and quantifiable gain in the soldiers performance. A lot of discussion points to the 7.62 as an alternative, mostly because of it being a NATO standard, that doesn’t strike me as the solution. Especially for the IAR the selection of the 7.62 ignores one of the reasons why the 5.56 was selected in the first place, providing a round with lower recoil to allow for accurate automatic fire.
This HK IAR is going to have trouble if it fires from the closed bolt, like the rest of the 416 series.
Maybe what I’m going to say is a nonsense, but anyways… I understand that a battle rifle of the 50′s had too much recoil for firing in automatic with minimal efficiency, but half a century has passed.
During these years, some clever inventions have been created. For instance, “constant-recoil” mechanism for seriously mitigate recoil. It works well not only for a, ahem, Automatic Rifle (the ultimax mentioned in our topic), but other similar systems (extra-long recoil) has been implemented in weapons with serious recoil, like AA12 automatic shotgun.
If the recoil of a shotgun can be mitigated by these kind of mechanisms, I guess that it would work in a 21th century battle rifle too.
One bullet which definitively stops an enemy, and accurate automatic fire. Not rocket science, not lasers or energy weapons, not even caseless munitions.
Just avoiding lobbying efforts :)
One bullet, that definatively stops an enemy (presumably with one shot), and is controllable on full auto… now let’s add that it should be be light enough to carry at least 400 rounds (7 30 rd mags is a minimum, most of us go with more) have low enough recoil for female shooters, shoot flat enough to require no hold over at max point target range, have a heavy enough projectile to limit wind drift (we are shooting outdoors, after all), not increase the logistics burden, and be fired from a weapon that is light, sturdy, appropriate for every urban and natural environment on Earth, and mass-producable with 2 MOA accuracy at 300 yards. Oh yeah, and Black Hawk Down (aka the Bible) has told us that it should take AK mags because battle-field pick up is crucial. All of that would be great. Our men in uniform would have the best.
Starting to understand why sticking with the 5.56 and a piston-driven AR seems like such a good idea? They are cheap and work OK for a rifleman (when supplemented with a Weapons Squad) regardless of what Black Hawk Down of some guy who shot a goat with an A1 in 1965 have to say about it.
The question isn’t “why 5.56?” but “why IAR?”. 5.56 is good enough as long as someone nearby has an MG, and the Army is all about “good enough”, not perfect. Get used to it. If every Platoon’s got a bunch of riflemen with hundreds of rounds each of 5.56, a couple 240s with a couple hundred rounds each, and a couple more 203s with two dozen rounds each, plus a few AT4s or Gustavs for good measure, why are we spending money on an IAR at all? I never saw SAWs put to good enough use to justify the expense. Ditch ‘em all and give me another 240 and 2 marksmen with M21s in each platoon. Next question.
Ok, you can carry 7 or even 10 30-round magazines. Good. But if the guy who is in the other end of the bullet trajectory is still fighting after receiving one impact in the chest (are enough data about the frequency of this?), then you have to divide the quantity of your ammunition at LEAST by two – double tapping. And this is plain optimistic, because if you shoot more, you are going to fail more often given the same shooting aptitude.
So, 210 rounds doesn’t mean what you mean, I’m afraid. Indeed, it is obvious that part of the 5.56′s users are going to suffer a serious trade-off: confidence. If they witness a fearful episode of an enemy still fighting after receiving chest impacts, some of them are going to be less inclined to fight with their M4. In other words, they are going to be less inclined to fight and with good reasons to do so.
The evolution of caliber rationale is quite interesting, to say the least. For instance, the reason which gave birth to .45 (a bullet which assured to stop filipino combatants) or the reason that made italian and japanese to switch from their 6.5mm to 7mm seemed to be compatible with the reason for maintain a varmint caliber to fight wars.
Returning to my prior post, I find more and more interesting why all the discussion is about caliber and not about recoil atenuation
Happy new year!
5.56 as has been stated is a good effective round. Bigger is not necessarily better.
But the other ‘problem’ for H&K and FN-FAL is they are not ‘native’ companies and although they are allied countries… we cannot buy standard military weapons from other countries and put ourselves in the bind on being limited on weapons or components being furnished from another country.
Juan brought up a good point about recoil. That’s why the Ultimax is the way to go but in 6.8mm or 6.5mm or even 7.62mm NATO.
How about a Ultimax in 7.62 NATO?
No problems with recoil and a round that hits hard. Now that’s a real BAR!!!!!
Anyone who has done this for real knows that quantity has a quality all its own. 5.56 is not the greatest thimg ever… it has it’s limitations. Penetrating cover is the big one. But there’s a lot to be said for being able to put hundreds and hundreds of rounds downrange whether you hit and/or kill anyone or not. Not advocating “spray and pray”, just saying that you don’t always have the chance for that one shot/center of mass kill. Having a lot of chances is nice since each individual chance may suck.
And no, there is not enough evidence yet that 5.56 won’t kill. For every wild story about a VC or whoever who took dozens of 5.56 rounds and showed no ill effects whatsoever, there is a story about someone who took one 5.56 in the ear and died stone dead. Lots of Iraqis would tell you 5.56 works just fine if they were still alive to talk. Anyone here ever shoot a deer with a 7.62 and watch it run away? Even soft point 7.62 doesn’t guarantee magical instantaneous stoppage of a running, excited person. Just about the only thing to make that guarantee is buckshot (so I hear anyway) and that has its own issues.
The recoil attenuation systems I’ve fooled with in shotguns show promise but add weight and complexity. No idea how they’d fare in a real fighting environment. Not an issue if you stick with 5.56 which is good enough for most work (when there’s an MG organic to the Platoon). And good enough is all you ever get in this game. So stop imagining that 6.5 or whatever would be perfect if only the dorks at DOD would wake up. There are good logistical and budgetary reasons to stick with 5.56, and tens of thousands of other good reasons pushing up daisies in the Sunni Triangle.
The Russians, specially after 1990, have to be very careful with their defense budget. They just have not enough rubles for even some relativelly basic equipment, like attack helicopters. Of course, they cannot change their ak74 for an94.
But they are not totally incompatible with caliber changes. For instance, they have achieved a good degree of success with their 9×39 subsonic in urban combat (range of 200m, controlable recoil, really silenced weapons). They are also distributing 9×21 pistols and smg with really hot charges that have reallistic odds of penetrating some body protection. Indeed, they have planned to replace 5.45mm for a bigger round (imagine: that round cannot penetrate even light protections and barricades, and don’t forget that its design creates worse wounds that NATO round), but they just don’t have money.
All that caliber innovation has taken place not in all Russian Army (read my lips: no money at all), but with special groups and corps, like some elite interior ministry troops.
That is another good lesson: in the first stages of an evolution, it is not needed to change the caliber of EVERY individual weapon. It is not so urgent to change caliber of weapons of second line and auxiliary troops (a good number), and even the caliber of the guns of “normal” troops. Maybe a couple of thousands of guns for the proverbial point of the spear would be enough to test the concept, specially if in all the process the real voices, the voices of the users, are carefully listened.
I think that if 6.5, 6.8 or both are tested in different real environments, they would generate enough amount of data for an accurate evaluation. Keeping in mind that both calibers are objetivelly AT LEAST as capable as 5.56, fighters would not loss any capacity – exception made of the minor quantity of rounds that they would carry, i.e. 25 in a 30 rd mag for 6.5mm.
Whatever the field data shows, either that the improvement don’t justify a caliber change (while we still wait for wunderenergy weapons) or that 6.5 or 6.8 offers much better results in different and important aspects, they would be mandatory to apply, since they are about soldier’s performance in the field of battle.
The Russians, specially after 1990, have to be very careful with their defense budget. They just have not enough rubles for even some relativelly basic equipment, like attack helicopters. Of course, they cannot change their ak74 for an94.
But they are not totally incompatible with caliber changes. For instance, they have achieved a good degree of success with their 9×39 subsonic in urban combat (range of 200m, controlable recoil, really silenced weapons). They are also distributing 9×21 pistols and smg with really hot charges that have reallistic odds of penetrating some body protection. Indeed, they have planned to replace 5.45mm for a bigger round (imagine: that round cannot penetrate even light protections and barricades, and don’t forget that its design creates worse wounds that NATO round), but they just don’t have money.
All that caliber innovation has taken place not in all Russian Army (read my lips: no money at all), but with special groups and corps, like some elite interior ministry troops.
That is another good lesson: in the first stages of an evolution, it is not needed to change the caliber of EVERY individual weapon. It is not so urgent to change caliber of weapons of second line and auxiliary troops (a good number), and even the caliber of the guns of “normal” troops. Maybe a couple of thousands of guns for the proverbial point of the spear would be enough to test the concept, specially if in all the process the real voices, the voices of the users, are carefully listened.
I think that if 6.5, 6.8 or both are tested in different real environments, they would generate enough amount of data for an accurate evaluation. Keeping in mind that both calibers are objetivelly AT LEAST as capable as 5.56, fighters would not loss any capacity – exception made of the minor quantity of rounds that they would carry, i.e. 25 in a 30 rd mag for 6.5mm.
Whatever the field data shows, either that the improvement don’t justify a caliber change (while we still wait for wunderenergy weapons) or that 6.5 or 6.8 offers much better results in different and important aspects, they would be mandatory to apply, since they are about soldier’s performance in the field of battle.
I have to admit, the most disconcerting thing to me about the sight of the H&K IAR was not the IAR concept, 5.56x45mm, or any “brass stupidity”…
It was this being my first thought: “Waitaminute, where’s the photo of the IAR? All I’m seeing is a 416.”
If they are going to replace the weapon with a better more dependable one then they need to change the round as well. The old M193 round while still not the best is far better than the M855 round when coupled with the 1 in 14 twist barrel, it did what small cal rounds do best ( go in bounce around tearing up tissue and come out some where else. ) when the upper echelon decided we needed a round that would penetrate Russian body armor at 600 yds things went south. ( steel tipped projectile with 1 in 7 twist barrel, its now a varmit rifle and not a battle rifle. ). The improvement is needed and always has been, the gas piston is definately the way to go ( STONER tried to get the military on track with this when he came up with the AR18 battle rifle and the M63 SToner system ). In the short term fix they should take the jacket of the M856 tracer and fill it with lead which would yeild a round of almost twice the current weight and could still be produced at Lake City Army ammunition plant with minimum changes and cost, and new barrels with a 1 in 10 twist. In the long term remington just came out with the best solution in the R25 rifle in 7mm 08 ( except it still has the gas tube and not a piston ), half the recoil of 7.62mm, flatter trajectory, more knock down after 100 yds ( twice at 300 yds )than 7.62mm and could be used in all current 7.62mm applications with only a barrel change ( MK110, M24, M21, M240, MK43, M134 ) and could still easily be mfg at Lake City with minimum changes and expense to the Govt. ( I.E. case mouth diameter, and bullet diameter dies ) a 140 gr FMJ fired from a weapon with a 1 in 12 twist would provide considerable knock down and accuracy improvements. Just as all the others on this page this is just my opinion, but being a weapons and ammunition QA for the Govt has given me insight most dont see.
I get the impression that most of the people here have never taken the time to see what a 5.56 round does to a person when it hits. Let me tell you I have seen the damage both from the outside and in post mortem. It’s not really significatly less distructive than the 7.62 (Which I have seen a bunch of too). The issue I think you guys are running into is confusing what happens to a drugged up religious zelot hit by a round with the amount of damage the round does.
I have seen people fight with their legs blown off by an AT4. This is the kind of damage that no rifle round is ever going to do, yet they still fight.
I wonder what is going to happen if we accept either the HK or FN weapon and all the other guys say: Hey this gun is awesome, our M-4′s suck. We all want the HK or FN.
Is this just a way to open the door for the HK416 or SCAR?
Is this just a way to open the door for the HK416 or SCAR?
I thought that that was already the case with USSOCOM? (At least with the SCAR, I haven’t heard of any other U.S. military unit besides That Which Must Not Be Named using the HK416.)
Bigdaddy brings up a good point….that would be interesting. Also I’m pretty sure I’ve heard from several credible sources that DEVGRU has hk416s too.
Juan. Last I checked, the only lobbyists working on Capital Hill were on HK’s payroll. Based on some of the comments here, it sounds like it was money well spent.
JustTheFacts, are you suggesting that Colt has anything but one of the biggest success stories of lobbying in Washington DC? What is your explanation for the survival of M16-M4 saga?
Indeed, I have not defended HK entry above the rest. Although it is probably superior in most aspects compared with Colt one (I’m talking about Individual weapon, HK IAR entry is just one more joke in the series), it has its own improvable aspects (like, i.e., forehand prone to overheated/ not enough insulated).
Besides lobbying success, the main difference between Colt and H&K is that H&K has to suffer a painful reestructuration process in 1990 – imagine, they had invested tons of deustchmarks in development of revolutionary caseless G11 and suddenly federal government cannot afford that wundergewehr. After that, the company was totally renewed and focused in evolutionary, quite efficient systems. As colt has been selling zillions of direct impingement systems, they don’t have receive any serious pressure towards change and adaptation
TDS4S has nailed it. Also the weight of ALL the IARs SHOULD INCLUDE the foregrip/bipod, a reflex sight, laser pointer and some nice night vison kit and that will reflect its combat weight.
Is it too late to include the M1918A1 as it meets all the crietria except weight and caibre but it is combat proven and can chew through bricks and mortar like a chain saw.
Yes, the game has changed. This is a very different millenium from the one your fathers knew. 5.56 and the miserable doctrine that spawned it are on the way out. Lead, follow or get out of the way.
“JustTheFacts, are you suggesting that Colt has anything but one of the biggest success stories of lobbying in Washington DC? What is your explanation for the survival of M16-M4 saga?”
.
Colt wanted to introduce detail improvements into the AR-15 design, but that was prevented by red tape.
Maybe Colt is successful at lobbying for contracts, but Pentagon bureaucracy has the ultimate responsibility and wasn’t always productive.
FoxThree: Would make sense, but of course those who would know are understandably not telling.
totnochoc: The BAR would probably would fail a de facto “must be accessorizable out the ass” test. *joking* That and I’m not sure how exactly it would differ from, say, bringing back the M14 (even if that’s a logistical impossibility now) for the IAR role…
Sven Ortmann: I actually heard this before, complete with Colt’s offer of a gas piston upper being declined.
bdwilcox: I don’t think it’s only women for whom supposedly 7.62×51 would be a bitch much… (Of course, I would never want to be shot at by a .17 Hornady, much less hit with any caliber.)
General thought on weight: We’re all keeping in mind that much of a soldier and/or Marine’s weight in combat won’t just be from their rifle, I take it?
*Whoops! I meant “a “bit” much and “shot at with”… oh boy. Sorry about that.
P.S. As for why the BAR/M14 comparison, my brain is just thinking “20 rounds of 7.62mm on full auto.”
it is *unreal* the way people get their panties twisted over new rifle selections…
I’d definitely have to root for Leitner-Wise’s IAR in 6.8. The round has better ballistics, there’s 28 rounds to a magazine, it’s a piston-drive and will operate either closed bolt or open bolt, depending on the firing mode. The gas block is adjustable for suppressed or unsuppressed fire AND it’s cheaper than the HK. Just think, you won’t have to put 3 rounds into en eneny’s torso to drop them…
LWRC. Check it out.
5.56 still? Hell, why don’t they just go with the .17 Remington?
Posted by: bdwilcox at December 30, 2008 02:23 PM
Oh, come on – .17 Rem? Overkill… Have a look at the .22 Hornet or (I hate myself for even mentioning this) how about the .25 auto? Safest round in the universe… no way to hit what you want, range is under 2 meters, and if you tag a person, a dog, etc… it’s nearly impossible to do anything more than piss them off.
Why aren’t we looking for something in between overkill and useless? The Belgian FN-FAL, Greek built H&K G3 or the Brit L1A1 SLR are great choices and there are crates of them all over the place – so prices are 1/5 that of a ‘new’ 5.56 M-16/M-4 rifle…
let’s just end this silly discussion about .223, .30 or inbetween. go with the .50 .
plenty of rifles around, good range and stopping power. no need for full auto on the rifle, so slight weight penalty not an issue. the M2 should make a good SAW, the squad should have little trouble splitting up the load of the gun, tripod and ammo. that would allow for replacement of the M240 by something like the 25mm chain gun. this would have ammo commonality with the bradley, making logistics less of a problem. if desired a 30mm gun could be used sharing ammo with the Apache. To replace the underpowered Javelin missile I suggest the minuteman family. the marines could use the Trident instead, giving more flexibility given their amphibiious mission.
“the “killing power” of a bullet is the amount of kinetic energy (KE) transferred to the target.”
Not really. This kinetic energy school of thinking was disproved by scientific and practical examination.
Energy transfer doesn’t mean much – there are huge, gigantic differences between 7.62x51mm bullets of the same caliber despite almost identical KE.
Try this:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
An M-16 chambered for .50 isn’t out of the realm of possibility:
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/m16_50.aspx
http://www.50beowulf.com/
the AK -magazine compatibility is an argument , 7.62 should be the minimum caliber, and the rifle should accept AK magazines ( for the reason given above ) , small calibers are wanted by the bureaucratic sys. as the ind. sold. can carry much more of this ammo and , by experience , many sold. waste to much ammo in combat ( and that is a logistic prob
ONCE AGAIN THE BEAUCRATS PUTTING SERVICE MEN & WOMENS LIVES AT RISK. I AGREE WITH AN ABOVE CAPTION 7.62 SHOULD BE THE MIN. CALIBER CARRIED OR MAYBE JUST MAYBE THE US GOVERNMENT MIGHT WANT TO INVEST IN CREATING THIER OWN ROUNDS AND POSSIBLY WEAPONS.
We can always go with teh HK417 in three variants and all in 7.62x51mm NATO.
http://www.hk-usa.com/le_hk417_general.html
Type Designation Caliber Length Barrel length Rate of Fire
HK417 12″ “Assaulter” Model 7.62x51mm NATO 31.69/34.84″
12″ 500-600 rpm
HK417 16″ “Recce” Model 35.62/38.77″ 16″ 500-600 rpm
HK417 20″ “Sniper” Model 39.56/42.71″ 20″ 500-600 rpm
With reference to the 5.56/ 7.62 argument. The 5.56 was introduced as a NATO standard so that all allied forces could re-supply from each other in a worst case scenario. The reason we all moved from 7.62 to the smaller round was that it was beleived that one wounded soldier would remove two more fit men from the battlefield in order to move and support the casualty (5.56 having less lethality than 7.62). Obviosly this logic is irrelevent in todays theatre as I myself have witnessed a suspect suicide bomber hit six times in the torso and he was unaffected enough to exit his vehicle and run for cover. I’d opt for the extra weight of 7.62 every time. For the gun nuts who’re threatening to shoot blokes in the face to prove the efficiency of 5.56, why don’t you try firing each round into a soap block instead, which has the same density as human flesh and also illustrates the terminal ballistic properties fantastically. Also reference the post who commented on the U.S. selling NATO their stock of 5.56, each country’s weapon system is developed around their own design of bullet. The brits have a tiny air pocket in the tip whereas the yanks have solid core throughout (last time I was breifed, though they may have updated). Too many people taking wikipedia as gospel me thinks. (And before anyone invites me to their pad to get my face shot off, I’m a Royal Marines Sniper who’s worked with task force 32 in Afghanistan so its my job to know these things)
The 5.56 vs 7.62 discussion has easily been beaten to death. There are assumptions made on both sides of the argument, whether its an assumption that just being sufficient is enough or if an over kill reaction addresses all design issues. Around the M16/AR15 design the civilian market has created many variants with various chambered calibers, its seems a wasted opportunity to have decide between only two common cartridges. Its like trying to buy a car and limiting yourself to only two choices a Honda Civic or a Ford F150.
5.56X45 Vs. 7.62X51 – A simple test- At 100 yards, take a .375″ Steel Pl. and FMJ bullets. See which one makes it best through the plate. There is something to be said for a little more power. Want a high velocity bullet? Choke the 5.56 down to .17 Cal.or go to the .223 WSM. None of these are practical at long range like the 7.62 in either 51MM length or 54MM length. I don’t have a problem packing 200 rounds of 7.62, and if anyone can’t handle the recoil, which is nothing, they don’t have any business packing any way. There are too many women burning powder in O6′s and Mag. rifles.
Another good comparison is the .762X39, on a good platform, it is a good cartrige.
OK come on A fighting man/woman needs the abillity to hit the target. most shots are at 100-200yards. sounds easy. well it’s not. 1st you have to see the target aim your weapon squeess the triger, and continue to see the target right
ok now the target sees you aims and pulls the trigger. Now its not so easy. the round doesn’t matter unless you are real close.
As a ret. SEAL my weapon of choice was the old M-14 so I could reach out and touch someone. so I am alittle pred. twords it. but I also know I would like more ammo with me. same thing is true with hand guns. I prefer the .45 over the 9mm and this is strictly for the knock down power. But going into a room full of badguys I want more ammo.
I was one of the lucky ones. I got to chose what I carried.
Thanks for letting me vent SHAKEY
HK: Because you suck and we hate you!
if you have effective shot Placement, it won’t matter.
The problem with the 5.56 is the bullet. Has any one ever shot a woodchuck or a larger varmit with this caliber? I have and not to damn meny move after the first round hit including deer. A better designed bullet is a huge answer. I opened up a 200 lb. deer shot with a balistic tip and it looked like it swollowed a hand granade. On a human I believe it would have the same effect, or greater. We need to look at changing the rules of war,and piss on the FMJ, or make it expand like the Brits. or Russians with their 5.45. Their is an answer out there just need the burocrats to keep their noses out of it. I also believe the 6.5 would be a much better choice than the 5.56. But you have to go along way to beat 7.62×51.
Brit 5.56 doesn't expand, it just continues the same experience as the old .303 Mk VII ammo, by having a light head and heavy arse (the Mk VII had an ali or scrap smelter slag tip and a lead body under the jacket) when hitting a traget the heavy lead base holds the momentum and overtakes the lighter tip which slows more due to the resistance of the flesh. making the bullet spin like a buzz saw. Twist rate, bullet weight and projectile speed are also carefully matched so the bullet, while stable while spinning at speed, is unstable when impact slows it. Unlike the US 5.56 armour percing antipersonel round that just spins on and zips through flesh instead of tumbling.
We all know that the most dangerous thing in the woods is man. Why wouldn’t you want to hunt them with with the most powerful weapon you could carry. Along with the most damaging round. We can put a man on the moon. But we can’t make a powerful weapon that is light and agile. That’s made here in the U.S.A. by the fathers, mothers,brothers,sisters,sons and daughters. Of the men that are using them. Thats quality control at its best. Give a ground pounder a choice and see which one is picked. In case you forgot wars are won on the ground, unless your going atomic. This is the future. Not the time to be penny wise and dollar dumb. Freedom is the the most precious gift we have.
Only ONE comment in favor of caseless? (Thanks, demophilus) Come on, guys, more rounds and/or bigger balls with less weight in both the arm itself as well as in the ammo? Who WOULDN’T want that? Or is this just a gripe session about who hates whom most?
This battle has been going on since the 60′s. A general wanted this round and the lightweight M16 and he got it, he and his country club buddies were the only ones happy about the change. Fast foward to the 80′s and it happened again with the 9mm vs 45acp battle, a general wanted it and got it despite complaints from the troops. Now here we are today – 45acp is back for it’s stopping power and the officers in country want it, only now we tax payers are stuck with $1200.00 price tags for the new 1911′s vs the original purchase price of $35.00 each ( which is what units were still charged for them through the supply system into the 80′s ). Also during the 80′s we pressured everyone in NATO to adopt the 5.56mm, they were all still using 7.62mm (H&K’s and FN’s), We all know there are better calibers out there, if it were up to me M4′s would be rebarreled to 357 magnum and be loaded with 158gr semi jacketed semi wad cutters ( definately a man stopper. and good close combat round under 100 yds ). but it would be no good in open terrain. That is the problem, it has to be muliti functionable in all terrains. To me the best weapon is the Isreali Galail ( an improved and modernized AK47/FN spinoff ) it is cheap to mfg like the original AK and very rugged, it was available in 5.56mm, 7.62mm, and 7.62X39 for covert ops. We pressured Isreal to adopt the M16 and M4 finally and their troops are not happy about it at all. The 7.62 is making a come back, 1000′s of M14′s were pulled off shelf’s and sent to the gulf and Ar10 variants have also been purchased in large numbers and sent over after the supply of M14′s ran out. So the officers in country are aware of what is needed, they want .45′s and 7.62′s, and 12ga shotguns in large ammounts. SOCOM units are also getting by utilizing 77gr 5.56mm in thier 416′s for extra heft ( no steel penetrators either for more expansion ). But the generals sitting around stateside still decide what gets bought from who regardless of what the warfighters request. always have and always will. Does the 5.56mm have a history of killing YES but it was the M193 55gr projectile fired from a 1 in 14 twist barrel, not the 64gr stell penetrator tipped M855 fired from a 1 in 7 twist barrel adopted in the late 80′s. This is where the confusion starts. The stell tip and faster twist rate causes minimal damage at close range, it’s intent was for ranges of over 300 yds fighting the russians in europe not urban warfare. The exotic ammo everyone keeps talking about will not happen, too costly and too much tool replacement and facility down time at Lake City Ammunition Plant. It has to be 7.62mm or a better 5.56mm flat out.That is what needs realistic input. Mine is to use the M856 tracer jacket which is twice as long as the ball round jacket, and fill it with led resulting in a much heavier bullet that will expand better. Hollow points are not going to happen for regular issue, yes we do have open tip 7.62 long range sniper ammo but it is 10x the cost of a ball round and why it’s use is limitted. So now what is everyones advice????
The problem w/ HK is the customer service. They won’t be able to deliver the number necessary and they won’t be able to supply parts for them.
Once the sale has been completed they will treat the customer like crap. I used to work for HK for about 6 years as a trainer. I know what their management will do.
They have little intelligent leadership stateside.
Very interesting.
The H&K candidate has a fairly high cyclic rate of fire, which could be problematic for a magazine fed automatic weapon. History suggests that the ideal rate of fire should be closer to 500 rpm rather than the H&K which pushes 900 rpm.
Higher cyclic rate increases the rate of wear on a machinegun, but the greater problem is tactical. Accuracy and economy of fire, which can be critical for a squad level weapon, suffers at high cyclic rates.
Opps, no edit post function… should be x51 not x57 for the 7.62
Latest gouge ouf of SysCom is that H&K has won the contract, although the announcment is not official as of yet. The person in charge of the weapons program has said he has known for over a month who the winner is, but it's up to SysCom to make the formal announcement before he can discuss it.
do not worry about Colt , they will buy enough polticians to ensure their model is chosen. When the M -16 first came out no one on the ARMY ordance board wanted the rifle. McMcmara said US troops would be using it even though all of the testing showed what a piece of shit it was. I was in VN when the riffle was first issued and a lot of men died due to that piece of junk. In the middle of a fire f/ght you would have to break it down in a shotgun position to clear the chamber from 3 to 4 rounds being jammed up in the barrel reciever group. Then if you were the poor SOB that your rifle carboned up from firing , well all you had to do was field strip it down completely to clean it. Some one forgot to tell the NVA/VC that they were to cease firing until we had our rifles clean the NVA wouldn't even pick them up after kicking a units rear end. 45's M 60's and M 79's were all gone.M 16's were left with our dead. So go colt go you rate right there with Jane Fonda
simple go back to the M-14
As a scout in LAR I would love 7.62 but until the rest of the fire team is using the same rounds I can live with 5.56. With that said i got to see the IAR yesterday and I'm very impressed. And cant wait to get hands on this weapon and put it through the paces. As long as I get to use a mag with over 30 rounds.
There is a lot that can be done with the 5.56 to make it better at penetration and/or give it more stopping power but since the Hague convention (in effect) prohibits deviation from full metal jacketed rounds. Although you trade off penetration some weapon systems would make sense to have loaded with hallow points exclusively like the M9 and having the option I'm sure many a rifleman would prefer to have a few mags of JHPs to augment his kit. I definitely think it'd be more economical than retooling the entire military and most of the nations that observe this treaty would probably go along with a little adjustment to it. The combatants on today's battlefields are mostly without government and so it's not like they are double checking to make sure that they're acting in keeping with the geneva (and other) conventions.
the only thing i care about is it uses the same design as the M16 and M4 .. those SUCK in the feature designs.. stop using the rear top mounted charging handle.. Pain in the ass.. Im a Marine and i freaken hate my rifles set up.. why is it so awkward to reload and lock the bolt back when other designs are so easy? .. to hell with this design, it makes you have to take teh rifle off your shoulder to do anything but rack it back.. thats a liability i dont want when im in a fire fight