My colleague Christian Lowe over at Kit Up reached out to Maj. Tom Ehrhart, the author of the paper on infantry small arms in Afghanistan we’ve been discussing on the site and that has been creating a lot of buzz in Army and special ops circles. Ehrhart, who is over in Iraq, was good enough to write back and give an update on his own research and the response his paper has been getting.
What he had to say about infantry tactics in Afghanistan and what led him to research and write the paper I found particularly illuminating.
“In discussions with veterans of Afghanistan, I realized that we had another deficiency in training in that we only trained to 300m and our equipment limited us to that distance as well. Engagements were coming beyond this distance and instead of relying on our own ability to finish the fight, we called in supporting fire. Since this wasn’t always available or allowed due to political restrictions, we were more dependent on our own ability to finish the fight.
In this case, why weren’t we effective? Was it an equipment limitation, training issue, a facility limitation or just outdated doctrine? This led to another series of questions, such as why do we use the 300m popup course and when did we start? What did we do before then? How did our ancestors train to shoot to distance? This led to the questions about the history of the 5.56 and the M16/M4. I think the history aspect of the paper is interesting for the modern infantrymen to see what his lineage is. While equipment limitations seem to be what most people grasp on to, I still maintain that you must first be able to hit the target. Equipment is secondary to training.”
Go check out Christian’s write up for more.
– Greg
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
As we all know, the 5.56mm was chosen to lighten the infantrymans load; his rifle, the ammo carried and make him more effective in close(r) engagements as found in the jungles of Vietnam.
If an operational need for a different caliber could be made then, then it can be done now. All it really needs is a cultural shift from "Hollywood" M-4 carbines to Real World battle rifles.
In a perfect world, both 5.56 and 7.62 could be replaced by a 6.8 SPC, in all carbines, rifles and GPMG/SAWs. But that would make too much sense.
Either we discard NATO standardization or we stick to 5.56/7.62 for a long time. I just don't see the whole of NATO going over to a 6.8 standard anytime soon.
I think you should remember, the US pushed NATO to switch to 5.56 from 7.62
The question continues to evolve around 1) ballistics beyond 300 meters and 2)stopping power. The 6.5 Grendle delivers both rang and power and accuracy as well. However the Americam Military establishment is probably not prepared to develope and field a new family of weapons based on a new round (6.5 Grendel). The cartridge however was designed from the get go to work in AR weapons and with an overall length not greater then the current 5.56 mm. Issue with the 6.5, more difficult to control in full auto fire including burst fire. Check it out. Solutions are possible if the cost benefit analysis is calculated using the appropriate parameters.
I am not a gun guy, more a technician. But I thought the idea of a smaller round was it is a much higher velocity….
I really do not want to fire up "the" rifle argument again (5.56 vs 7.62). It seems to come up on this site all to much….
However, I would like to suggest that the army could tailor weapons to the environment.
Much like the continuing uniform saga…. Each war should be looked at and equipment tailored to the fight.
Instead of hand wringing for months/years before changing the entire army for the current conflict…..
This would be expensive in terms of training and equipment; but a "one size fits all" has been getting people killed for a long time…. Including Iraq and Afghanistan…..
last thought on this subject….Didn't the British bring this up first? :
http://defensetech.org/2010/01/08/brits-getting-i…
There is no magic round. The absolute best solution to this problem, in my humble opinion. Is to get keep 5.56, deploy our guys with M16A4's and Mk. 262 ammo. And range time, range time, range time. Not only is replacing everything with a whole new round impractical during war time, it's dangerous. You think logistics is strains now… Just wait.
-Randall-
I don't see much sense in switching to 6.8. It may have better terminal performance, but range or accuracy aren't much better, and it's heavier. The 7.62 round, on the other hand flies much farther and hits harder than 6.8. As per reports, the military is addressing the range issue by pushing more M-14s to infantry squads. Additionally, in case you haven't heard, the army just purchased thousands of M-110s. Randall is right, the idea of retooling every main battle rifle in the fleet to accommodate this round is impractical and dangerous. Actually, it's laughable.
I’ve worked for a while as technical case officer for small arms and ammunition, and if you want to switch from the 5.56x45mm to the 7.62x51mm, my advice is to go for one of the AR-10 versions out there. Manual of arms will be the same as for the M16/M4, and a number of the spare parts should be interchangeable as well. All in all, this will reduce the re-training and logistics requirements and complications in switching to a new caliber.
As for your point on the 6.8mm (or 6.5, or whatever): Agree! If you want a larger, more powerfull caliber than the 5.56x45mm TODAY, the alternative is the 7.62x51mm.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
The 7.62 is a great, proven round. However, it also requires a larger rifle – you can't use it in carbines without massive loss of everything (range, accuracy etc). The 6.8 can be used with the current M-16 chassis without much retooling (upper exchange) and yes, it is slightly heavier and larger (25 vs 30 rounds per clip).
Having two calibers is btw perfectly doable. Best would be to use something like the FN SCAR which can comes in both 5.56 or 7.62 versions.
TOTALLY AGREE. If we want to field something today, 7.62×51 is the way to go.
It is interesting. If one looks at the history of military long gun rounds, the newer 6mm offerings are ballistically close the 6.5×55 Swedish round which was designed in the late 1800s and is renowned for its accuracy and terminal performance. The Swedes had doctrine that called for infantry using open sights to engage targets at 800m+! During the Boer War, the British were regularly ambushed by Boers at 600+ yards because the insurgents could disengage before significant combat power could be brought to bear on them.
In short, the proposition that infantry riflemen cannot make long shots has already been disproven for at least a century.. It is no accident that when looking at photos and reading action reports (Like the OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAIN, etc.) that Afghans continue to value .303 Enfields and Brens along with 7.92×57 Mausers. The ex-Soviets can testify to their effectiveness.
It's not "impractical" or "dangerous." That assertion is "laughable."
You just replace one upper receiver for the other. The lower receiver is the same, and you can even use the same magazines. And range and accuracy ARE much better, but without the weight and recoil of 7.62. Recoil was a concern for new soldiers and was one of the reasons the Army like 5.56.
The reason the Army hates 6.8 so much was that it was designed, developed and purchased by SOF, which most of the "mainstream" Army hates. "Not our idea" is the biggest problem we have in Army procurement. Witness the Dragon antitank missile and the M60. Both weapons easily outclassed by their European counterparts, which could have been purchased off the shelf. But no, we couldn't do that.
By the way, the South Korean Army is now fielding the gun/grenade launcher combo that we were working on but canceled. Yet another in a long line of M16 replacements that suddenly didn't work anymore and had to be canceled. Are we supposed to believe that the South Koreans could do it but we couldn't?
If some Pentagon seat shiner had come up with the 6.8, every rifle would already be in that caliber.
But it wasn't, and so rounds not fit to hunt deer with are still used in stubby rifles meant for situations where the full size M16 was not practical, like tank crew and aircrew weapons.
Forget 500m. We're lucky we get kills at 300.
the south korean unit is not semi auto. They went with a bolt action, to reduce weight. In addition, the lethality of the 20mm frag rounds is still in question…unless you assume that all your enemies are as easy to pop as balloons [as seen in youtube vids of weapons demonstrations]
A quick replacement program of the M14 was the problem in the first place why we have the M16/M4 in service.
Yes, whatever replaces it should be better, but it should also go under more trials/testing. Look at the magazine issues with the M16A1 when it was only the 20rnd mag initially.
For those crying out for a fast replacement – in essence you are asking for the same mistake to be made twice (i.e. a rush into service). Personally I understand why those in charge are taking their time. What would happen if there was a feed issue that only becomes apparent with the exact conditions in Afghan with a new rifle – after already straining the system with introducing a new round and rifle, what would happen then? I'm pretty certain people would like a rifle that works and you know what to do when it breaks down not a new gizmo that is broken and the spare parts are a week away.
To help them take 500 meters the modern rifleman needs a strait forward and simple to use ballistic correction method.
Stereo digital cameras can provide a straightforward method of ranging to targets. Stereo ranging is how they did it in the old day’s (pre laser).
Plunk a Stereo digital camera type sight on every rifle giving the ability to zero in at different distances faster and you’ll change the fight beyond 500 meters.
You're much better off using a Fire Control System like the Aimpoint BR8, which will give you a corrected aimpoint out to 600 metres for all currently used munitions (including 40mm LV).
Or you can train your soldiers to use the equipment they have now and still be able to hit something at 500 metres.
The question here is also one of lethality, at 500 metres the 5.56 has lost so much velocity it will not reliably fragment unless it hits bone and it will not cause temporary cavitation. These two are actually the main damage mechanisms of the 5.56 round, as the permanent wound cavity produced is very small when compared to other rounds.
The 6.5mm grendel on the other hand, actually has MORE energy than a 7.62 at ranges over 300m, whist at the same time being lighter and producing only 50% of the recoil as well as being less affected by wind drift and having less bullet drop (making it easier to aim & hit at long ranges). All in all, it's a very very good round and really deserves to be tested thoroughly.
Laser based ballistic correction such as the BR8 require the target at distance to reflect enough light. They tend to fail when the target materials do not reflect enough light.
Fire control using stereo digital camera for ranging (disparity mapping) in combination with a weapon’s mounted Wii type MEM’s sensor would allow the calculation the firearms predicted impact point.
Stereo ranging is commonly used now in computer vision applications; giving robots the smarts to traverse distances intelligently.
Application to firearm such as the M-4 would allow for near real-time ballistic correction.
Give every man in the infantry squad the aim of a designated marksman. With adequate fire control this can be achieved. The goal should be owning everything up to and beyond 500 meters!
What about the new 6.8 mm combat rifle being developed now? Remington's version, with interchangeble 5.56 mm and 6.8 mm barrels, looks awesome to me. How far are these weapons away from being fielded?
The Mk 262 77 grain 5.56 round has been in use by Special Forces in Afghanistan since 2002. It gives better performance at long range and performs better from short barrel rifles like the ones on the M4.
If you combine this ammunition with M16A2/A4 rifles with full length 20 inch barrels and SAWs with the original 18.5 inch barrels you have solved the equipment issue.
Mk. 262 ammo, 20" barrel, range time. Problem solved.
We have been issued 262 since we got our Mk12 sniper rifles in 2005. I think carbines should be left to who they were meant for, specialist teams such as entry teams, vehicle crews, ect but unfortunately 11b are now the entry team.
hey christian!, Army Times article about the marines getting it right with 5.56 ammo??? this should be a headline? no?, please check it out which i am sure that you all have already but would rather read the real deal from the pros like you all. Thanks!
I second the motion for the 7.62. If this would solve the problem then let the fighting troops have it.
Hi Greg,
In the meantime, the 5.56mm M-4 still can shoot out to 1,000m. They just need to elevate their rifles by about 1 degree. It's like arcing fire from World War I. The entire squad can mass their fire to compensate for the inaccuracy of the weapon at that range. A rain of bullets coming down on insurgent heads will keep them down, no matter the range.
http://americanmohist.blogspot.com/2010/03/take-b…
I don't understand, First off the 5.56 can hit stuff all the way out to 1000m. The SPR has a max range of 600m on a point target. If you can hit a point target at 600m with the round you can hit an area target at 1k. All you have to do is put a few more rounds over there. The British used to do this for their own fire support, they called it the made minute and they did it with bolt action rifles.
I say train them to use what they have, upgrades are great, but training is better.
At 600 metres a 5.56mm will not cause temporary cavitation, nor will it fragment, meaning that the only wounding mechanism you have is drilling a 6 mm hole in your opponent (the round might not even pass all the way through the target) which is roughly the equivalent is stabbing someone with a pencil.
Sure, if you hit a major bloodvessel or nerve bundle or the heart you may be able to kill your opponent. but at that range it is all down to luck.
Yes the British bolt action mad minute was performed with the Lee-Enfield SMLE in caliber .303. The same caliber was used in their STEN MG's. The .303 cartridge is vastly superior to the 5.56X51mm in knock down power and range. The 5.56X51mm isn't even in the same class.
The Marines are already engaging targets out to 500m with the M16 and we have been for years. We train our ranges with 500m targets (that's with iron sights and everybody's getting ACOG's overseas now) unlike the army, and there are snipers for support with larger caliber (.308 and 50 cal), as well as having the 240's and m2's that can reach way out.
Again, we can argue small arms ballistics til we are blue in the face and we won't solve the essential problem, which is tactical and doctrinal. You don't use smallarms to fight an enemy with superior ground, heavier weapons, greater visibility and better protection. You fight that enemy with artillery, close air support and other indirect fire methods.
The basic problem is that our guys are being watched from afar by an enemy that holds the heights. The ambush is set and sprung, and the enemy can watch how our guys react to it from their high vantage points, and coordinate their response. meanwhile, we cannot see what they are doing and thus cannot do anything but react to what they do. Bad tactics descending from bad doctrine.
We've got to take the high ground away from them, either by occupying it ourselves, or by making it too dangerous for them to stick their effing heads up.
I served in Veitnam, the M-16 was a good weapon once the bugs were woked out. The problem is that it's best suitted for jungle and close urborn combat. I also belive any soldier should be able to hit a target at 500m with training. My first rifle issued was a M14, although a little heavy it was and still is an exalent weapon. I belive that the M-110 is the best choice of rifles; why do you think the AK-47 has been so effective ? Reason"7.62" enough said!—1st ID–3rd Bd.–1/16 Rangers — 1968
Formation of crew, squad or platoon sizes and armament is a tactical decision not a military doctrine standard. The formation of platoons; twelve, nine, or six man squads; or a four man fire teams depends on the armaments required for obtaining the mission objective.
In World War II and the Korean War we fielded a variety of small arms platforms and for good reason. Having different small arms using different calibers of ammunition caused logistical problems for the military. However, it was widely understood that battle field conditions required different small arm solutions. Some of these weapons were the M1 Garand, M1A Carbine .30 Caliber, Thompson sub-machine gun, M3 sub-machine gun (grease gun), BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, M1917A1 Browning machine gun, M1919 Browning machine gun, M2 Browning .50 Caliber heavy machine gun, and the M1911A1 Browning .45 ACP pistol. There were a few other specialty weapons which were used but the ones listed above formed our common small arm weapons cache during World War II. They worked and that’s why they are still venerated till this day.
Pentagon bureaucracy and Congressional Committees’ gridlock hold up Defense Department Small Arms Technology Strategy.
Current U.S. Military standard assault rifle and carbine and ballistic technology is forty to forty-five years old and in need of replacing.
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations. If we conclude the military may need multiple firearms we must also consider the impact to our light and medium machine guns.
What could possibly go wrong with an M4/M16A2/M16A4?
M4 and M16A2/M16A4 firearms require continual attention to cleaning and wear of the action, auto sear, ejection port cover, extractor, bolt catch, bolt gas, buffer retainer, and hammer springs; retaining pin; firing pin; bolt carrier group; bolt carrier assembly; trigger assembly; barrel; and dents, damage, and separation of magazine well, walls, feed, and feed lips.
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When cleaning and lubricating your weapon in a a hot, extremely dry, dusty and dirty environment requires the use of a dry lubricate such as Hornady One Shot Cleaner and Lubricate, Militec-1 Lubricate, Smooth Kote Lubricate, or one as such not CLP!
Now the Army wants some new M4 Mods like a heavier barrel and full auto. Gee what do you think is going to happen to all those other parts that can break when your rock'n and rolling in full auto with a heavier barrel?
The M4 Carbine and M16 Assault weapons may be acceptable to most military rifleman because it is all they know and have come to expect certain tolerance levels of failures and need for a higher degree of cleaning and maintenance because they have no other experiences with rifle or carbine assault weapons. Not knowing how much better a different solution will perform is a matter of life or death for our military personnel.
When studying small arms weapons of previous military conflicts of WWII and Korea there may be merit in that one weapon will not be the best tool for a variety of combat situations.
With accurate and dependable tactical small arms weapons we can fix enemy to positions in rough mountainous terrain at 600 to 1500 meters with sustained accurate deadly small arms fire. Formation of crew, squad or platoon sizes and armament is a tactical decision not fixed military doctrine or a regulation. The formation of companies, platoons; twelve, nine, or six man squads; or a four man fire teams depends on the armaments required for obtaining the mission objective. Remember that weapon’s fire accuracy is a perishable skill and must be practiced routinely with all weapons including pistols, manned portable anti-personnel and light and heavy anti-armor weapons, rifles, scout rifles, assault rifles, assault carbines, and CQB weapons.
Spec Ops testing of small arm platforms and caliber performance may be used as our baseline today. They do most of the live field testing of new weapons.
Spec Ops has been working with the 6.8 Remington SPC to replace the 5.56X51mm round. I believe it’s time we give our troops assault rifles with stopping power. Perhaps something such as Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with a military grade 16" barrel at 7.2 lb empty and length 35.5". An additional candidate would be the LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8 Remington SPC composite with a military grade 14.7" or 16.1" barrel at 7.3 lb empty and length 36.5". These weapons should have an effective range of 600~ meters.
One contentious point may be the merits of the 6.5mm Grendel caliber verses the 6.8 Remington SPC. Not to turn you totally on your head. I to feel the 6.5mm Grendel caliber may be more accurate and lethal out past 400~ meters and a better round for 600~ meters. However there is a severe shortage of proven 6.5 Grendel assault weapon platforms and I’m not sure how Spec Ops feels about the round.
Besides the need for the before mentioned weapons there still are needs for grenadiers, sharpshooters, and long range snipers. For sharpshooters the military needs a true battle rifle. The M14 is too heavy for troops continually on the move but may be fine for Naval Vessels. Instead we need something much lighter, similar to the Springfield Armory Loaded M1A MA9827 w/Extended Cluster Rail composite stock or Super Match M1A SA9804 Black McMillan stock caliber 7.62X51mm NATO with a military grade 22" barrel. The Match would weigh in at 11 lb and the Super Match at 12.2 lb empty and both at a length of 44.3". Addition of scope, bipod, and 20 round magazines may add 3~ lb. The Loaded and Super Match M1A’s would have effective ranges of 800~1000 meters, however with the longer barrel they may be more effective closer to the 1000 meter range.
There are other rifles available such as the FNAR caliber 7.62X51mm NATO with standard or heavy barrel at lengths of 16” or 20”, weighing 8.2 lb empty, with lengths of 37.5 or 41.5” with the 16” or 20” barrels respectively, 10 to 20 round magazines, and an effective range of 800~1000 meters. FN SCAR 17 Mod 0 in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weighing 8.2 lb empty, with a 20” barrel, SCAR-H Long 20 round magazine battle rifle, having an effective range of 800~1000 meters. Heckler & Koch HK417 caliber 7.62X51mm semi-automatic, with 20” sniper barrel, weighing 9.3 lb. empty no scope or bipod, 20 round magazine or optional 50 round drum magazine, with an effective range of ~1000 meters. Knight’s Armament Co. rifle SR-25 in caliber 7.62X51 NATO semi-automatic, with a 20” military barrel carbine with 9.5 lb. empty no bipod or scope, 20 round magazine, with a length of 37” depending on barrel length stock extended, and 33 .14” with the stock retracted, having an effective range of 800~1000 meters.
The rough mountainous terrain of Afghanistan means the military needs a truly tough Scout rifle for the same reasons hunters, ranchers, and farmers need them. Need for a rifle to carry anywhere and perform on open ground, rolling hills, and in mountains with range differences, and rough terrain with different angles of line of sight to target. These rifles are for humping rough mountainous and jungle terrain while still being able to reach out to the 800 ~1000 meters range depending on type of ammunition. A lighter and shorter battle rifle could be like a the Knight's Armament Co. rifle M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO composite with a military grade 20" barrel at 15.3 lb fully loaded scope, bipod, and 20 round magazine with a length of 46.5" and an effective range of 800 ~ 1000 meters. Springfield Armory offers a M1A AA9126 Semi-Automatic Scout Squad Rifle in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO composite with a military grade 18” barrel at 9 lb. with no scope, bipod, and 20 round magazines, with a length of 40.3”, having a maximum effective range of 800~ meters. The M1A AA9126 with scope, bipod, and 20 round magazines would weigh 13~ lb.
There is also the little known MK 14 Mod 0 EBR in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO composite, full or semi-automatic, with a military grade 18” barrel with scope, bipod, 20 round magazines weighing 12~ lb, a length of 35” with a maximum effective range of 800~ meters. The MK14 Mod 0 EBR is very good scout rifle for humping rough mountainous and jungle terrain. FN SCAR 17 Mod 0 in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weighing 8.2 lb. empty, SCAR-H long with a 20” barrel, Standard 20 round magazine, having an effective range of 800~ meters. Springfield Armory SOCOM II in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weighting 10.9 lb. empty, barrel length 16.3”, overall length of 37.3”, with a 20 round magazine, having an effective range of 800~ meters. Heckler & Koch HK417 caliber 7.62X51mm semi-automatic, with 16” accurized barrel, attached flash suppressor, weighing 8.94 lb. empty no scope or bipod, 20 round magazine, with an effective range of 800~1000 meters.
An FNAR-H in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weighing 10 lb. empty, with a 20” barrel, 20 round magazines, having an effective range of 1100 meters may make an effective scout rifle as well. The new Barrett M98B .338 Lapua Magnum Bolt-Action Anti-Materiel/Sniper Rifle may somewhat lighter and a good choice for humping rough terrain. This rifle weighs 18~ lb with bipod, scope, suppressor, and ammo capacity of 10+1 rounds, 27” match-grade barrel with 1:10 twist and recoil-mitigating muzzle brake at the end with an overall rifle length is 49.75”. It has a short-throw fast reloading bolt-action mechanism with an effective range of 800~ meters.
The military also needs an assault carbine or CQB weapon to replace the M4. The Barrett assault rifle REC7 weapon may be reconfigured as a carbine with a 12" barrel. A weapon such as LWRCI M6A2 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC with military grade 10.5" and 12.7" barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty is available. Also available is the LWRCI M6A1 caliber 6.8mm Remington SPC composite with military grade 10.5" or 12.7" barrel at less than 7.3 lb empty and a length of 33.3" for the 10.5" barrel. Something with a little more knock down power is a Heckler & Koch HK417 caliber 7.62X51mm semi-automatic, with 12” barrel, weighing 8.54 lb. empty with no scope or bipod, 20 round magazines, with an effective range of ~800 meters.
Or the new Knight’s Armament Co. rifle SR-25 in caliber 7.62X551mm NATO with a 16” military barrel carbine with 8.9 lb. empty with no bipod or scope, semi-automatic 20 round magazine, with a length of 37” stock extended and 33 .14” with the stock retracted. A 7.62mm version of this round, the MK 319 MOD 0, has also been developed in tandem with the MK 318 Mod 0. It also has been optimized for short barrels (16") but also for reduced recoil. It may have only been adapted to this point by SPEC OPS. FN SCAR 17S caliber 7.62X51mm NATO semi-automatic, weighting 8 lb. empty, 16.25” military specification barrel, 20 round magazine, overall length of 38.5”. An FNAR-H in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weighing 7.9 lb. empty, with a 13 or 16” barrel, 20 round magazines, having an effective range of 800~ meters may make an CQB or carbine respectively.
The military should replace the light machine gun squad automatic weapon M429 caliber 5.56X45mm NATO. Currently, in some places, the M429 is being replaced by the FN Minimi MK 48 Mod 0 belt fed squad automatic weapon in caliber 7.62X51mm NATO, weight of 18-19 lb with a barrel length of 19.8”, and an overall length of 40”. This lightweight machine gun would have an effective range of 800~1000 meters. It would be a heavy load to be humping in rough terrain with an ammunition canister attached to the weapon. But the FN Minimi MK 48 Mod 0 can be configured with clip-on combat pouches for 100 rounds making it a truly lightweight machine gun squad automatic weapon the military could hump in rough terrain and still get an effective range of 800~1000 meters. It could also be a set piece weapon with a canister belt feed and a carrying handle for quick detachable barrel replacement. It now becomes possible to use the 60mm M224 weight 14.4 lb, bipod 15.2 lb, base plate 14.4 lb, with effective range 3500~ meters or the 81mm M252 mortars overall weight 91 lb, canon weight 35 lb, mount 27 lb, base plate 29 lb, sight unit 2.5 lb, with effective range of 6000~ meters to saturate fixed enemy positions with devastating indirect fire power.
The use of the military could keep and improve the M420B type infantry medium machine gun caliber 7.62X51mm NATO with military grade 24.7” barrel, weighing 27.6 lb and a 600~800 meter effective range. The M420C vehicle and M420D/H aircraft mounted and egress versions would be improved and retained as well. The Marine Corp could keep an improved M420G type infantry medium machine gun ground version of the M240/M240E1 light armored vehicle mounted version. This weapon should be improved with a tougher more reliable and beefier grade mil spec belt feeding and chambering mechanism and a carry handle removable military heavy machine gun barrel.
The military needs an assault rifle to replace the M16/M4 with a 5.56X45mm NATO M855 round which soldier and marine riflemen testify goes straight through human targets at less than fifty to one hundred meters much less two hundred meters, with no or minimal cavitations, and minimal stopping power. This may be partially because of the discontinued use of the original 55 grain 5.56 bullet. Even if the new 5.56X45mm MK318 Mod 0 62 grain bullet has slightly better stopping power over the current NATO round there is still a question of effective range at 300~ meters.
Bartholomew Roberts explains … the caliber 5.56X51mm model MK318 Mod 0
“It isn't a hollow point. It is an Open-Tip Match round much like the M118LR. The jacket is drawn from the base (instead of the cheaper method of jacket drawn from the nose and an exposed lead base) to the tip of the bullet. The tiny little hole there is just a remnant from jacketing the bullet that way. It isn't designed for expansion or calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, so it doesn't violate the Hague conventions.”
For a sniper rifle, the new Remington precision modular sniper rifle M24A3 caliber .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges, bolt action may be better than the Barrett USMC M82A3 for humping in rough terrain. This rifle weighs 19~ lb. with sling, scope, bipod, suppressor-loaded with a 27” long military grade barrel. Rifling is 1-in-10-inch twist, 5 round magazine box, with a total rifle length of 49.75”, having an effective range of 1500~meters. The M24A3 can accommodate a 10 round magazine box. Other .338 Lapua Magnums are available like the Sako TRG-42 and AWSM rifles. The ballistics of the .338 Lapua Magnum cartridges has an effective range of 1300~1600 meters provided you have the right rifle/ammo/optics/shooter/spotter combination. The Barrett USMC M82A3 and US Army M107 in caliber .50 BMG semi-automatic rifle, with 29” military grade heavy barrel, rifling twist of 1X15”, 10 round magazine, weighing 31 lb. empty, with an overall rifle length of 57”, having an effective range of 1800~ meters. Not ideal for humping rough mountainous terrain but has longest effective range of sniper rifles.
For rough ground and mountainous terrain we need something like the old WWII and Korean War Browning Automatic Weapon. It may be possible that a Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), or a LWRC M6A2 caliber 6.8X43mm Remington SPC composite with a beefier upper receiver and light machine gun heavy military grade 20-21" barrel with carry handle for swapping out and with bipod for full 600~800 meter range may be enough for humping missions, having a 35.5” length with extended stock or 32.4 fully collapsed stock. The weapon would be magazine feed instead of belt fed. However, with the additional fire power of the new assault weapons, battle rifles, and scout rifle this may be sufficient if the upper receiver was designed to fire full auto more effectively than the base REC7 model. The new light machine gun could share 30 round magazines with the REC7 or M6A2 model or use a C Magazine 100 round capacity clear cover magazines. It could also be configured with a 14” barrel with short reach for CQB full and semi-automatic fire to replace the clumsy M429 light squad automatic weapon machine gun which cannot be used effectively for CQB.
For rough ground and mountainous terrain we need something like the old WWII and Korean War light weight Browning Automatic Weapon. It may be possible that a Barrett assault rifle REC7, (formally the M468), or a LWRC M6A2 caliber 6.8X43mm Remington SPC composite with a beefier upper receiver and light machine gun heavy military grade 20-21" barrel with carry handle for swapping out and with bipod for full 600~800 meter range may be enough for humping missions, having a 35.5”~ length with extended stock or 32.4”~ fully collapsed stock. The weapon would be magazine feed instead of belt fed. However, with the additional fire power of the new assault weapons, battle rifles, and scout rifle this may be sufficient if the upper receiver was designed to fire full auto more effectively than the base REC7 model. The new light machine gun could share 30 round magazines with the REC7 model or use a C Magazine 100 round capacity clear cover magazines. It could also be configured with a 14” barrel with short reach for CQB full and semi-automatic fire to replace the clumsy M429 light squad automatic weapon machine gun which cannot be used effectively for CQB.