NATO and US Military 5.56mm cartright failing badly in war!

[tomtex]

NATO troops in the Afghanistan war are reporting that most enemy engagement are beyond 300m and out to 800m, and the current NATO 5.56mm service cartright we use ,is none effective beyond 300m, for our troops this is a life and death issue and our congress needs to have hearing on this issue ASAP. The military have looked at the 6.8 Rem, and found it only a slight improvement over the current issue 5.56m rd when fired from the short barreled carbines and seemed to have drop it, the other rds NATO has also looking at the 6.5 Grendel and the 7mm em-2 cartright, but cant agree on what cartridge to pick.

Maybe if we pushed our congress person ,it will help our troops, also if we informed, TV/news papers,NRA, VFW, DAV of this problem.

What would you recommend for next generation military cartright and rifle type?

[JReed]

.243 Win is my vote. The AR10 is already chambered for it. It shoots flatter then the .308 and has much more punch then the .223/5.56 and is a compromise in terms of recoil between the 2 chamberings. Just my 2 cents.

[RustyJr]

The problem is that while hits beyond 300 meters is entirely possible the catridge itself was not designed to be used past 300. Add to this the fact that the current issue bullet weight is heavier than original specs and it is also being fired from a shorter barrel you have a recipe for failure.


RustyJr <><

[J Miller]

Personally, after about 300 yards it's artillery time. Even skilled rifleman are at a real disadvantage when the ranges reach that 800 yd point.

And what would I replace the Mattel Toy with? Well, I'm old fashioned, I think I'd have the M14 redesigned to take the old 30-06 ball round as a semi auto only and then make the troops shoot for accuracy rather than spray and pray.
Yeah, sort of a M1 Garand with a 20 round box mag.

JMHO

Joe

[jd45]

Why don't they just have the Regiment's armorer fit a few of each platoon's weapons with 20" barrels & supply whoever uses them with the 80gr bulleted ammo.Wouldn't that be a quick fix? I don't know.......just asking, jd45

[Griff]

Yeah, a M-14. What's so hard to understand... now, admittedly the rifle weighs more, the ammo weighs more... but since we seem to have a much more vehicle oriented infantry, is that really such a big deal? If I were going into battle, I'd much rather have an M-14 than a M-16.

[J Miller]

One of the arguments I've read for the M-16 was that it was lighter and the ammo was lighter so you can carry more ammo into battle. That sounds fine in theory but every time I think of soldiers using the M16, I remember seeing several news reports from the Vietnam conflict where Americans were hiding behind a wall and holding the M16 rifle up over the wall by the pistol grip and emptying the magazine full auto without even knowing where the bullets were going. Just wasting ammo.

I've seen this type of behavior several times in film. It's a waste.
Back up to the M14, semi auto only, and make every round count.
That will reduce expenses and the number of enemy as well.

I'm not saying this as a soldier or as a smart alleck, but as a shooter who knows that misses don't count, and a tax payer who's tired of seeing his tax money wasted.

No enemy was ever killed by a miss. And every bullet that misses is tax money wasted.

Joe

[jeepnik]

Oh heck, there's a whole bunch of people, commonly called vets, that could have told you the 5.56 was less than perfect more than 40 years ago. But, the same problem existed then as exists now. No one listens to the folks who know, from experience what they are talking about. Nope, some chairbound "expert" has all the "right" answers.

[jd45]

Extra ammo means nada. You gotta put more hits into the guy to put him down & keep him
there. Like Griff said, .30cal is the way to go. There's gotta be a more effective recoil reducer for the M-16 after it's re-chambered to .308. jd45

[FWiedner]

The answer is out there and was common knowledge in 3 wars before this one.

Go back to a .308 standard round, either 7.62 x 51mm NATO (.308 Win) or 7.62 x 63mm (.30-06 Springfield).

Sure they're heavier, but maybe if our men had actual weapons that killed the enemy on contact, they wouldn't have to carry around extra BS that serves only to keep the "deciders" from having to get their own hands dirty.

[Doc Hudson]

Whaat is bloody new about this info?

The 5.56 NATO has been failing miserably in battle ever since Mcnamara's and JFK's bean-counters forced it down military throats in the early 1960's.

Unfortunately I'm afraid the DoD and Pentagon have too much prestige invested in the pasture-poodle-shooter cartridge to ditch the darned thing.

IMO it is nearly 40 years past time the military should adopt a real man-killer to replace a darned varmint cartrige. A cartridge that will put an adversary down and out with one good hit rather than needing half a magazine to stop one skinny-arsed fanatic.

[Cliff]

The M-16 and 5.56nato cartridge were not ment for primary military rifle. Officially is was a secondary rifle, with the M-14 being the primary rifle. But, the powers that be jumped on the band wagon, adopting the M-16 and it's cartridge. This was back in the very late 60's or early 70's. They gave away the M-14 to Tiawan along with the machinery to make them. In 1996 or there abouts someone called this to their attention and they had a quick resuffle of the rules and more or less eliminated the M-14's from the inventory. (A lot of red faces over it). I seem to remember that the british when looking for their first small bore smokeless powder round were seriously looking at a .33 caliber cartridge and finally adopted the .303. They also came up with a whizz bang 7MM round when looking for a new rifle (FN) when they wanted to go to a semi and full auto rifle. Gave good ballistics but the U.S. wouldn't back down on wanting the equivalent of the 30-06 settling for the 7.62 Nato round. They had to re-engineer the Fn-Fal because of the size of the cartridge. Maybe we need to talk to the British Army, they seem to have some good ideas back in their day. Just a few thoughts. Good Luck.......

[Nath]

The M-16 and 5.56nato cartridge were not ment for primary military rifle. Officially is was a secondary rifle, with the M-14 being the primary rifle. But, the powers that be jumped on the band wagon, adopting the M-16 and it's cartridge. This was back in the very late 60's or early 70's. They gave away the M-14 to Tiawan along with the machinery to make them. In 1996 or there abouts someone called this to their attention and they had a quick resuffle of the rules and more or less eliminated the M-14's from the inventory. (A lot of red faces over it). I seem to remember that the british when looking for their first small bore smokeless powder round were seriously looking at a .33 caliber cartridge and finally adopted the .303. They also came up with a whizz bang 7MM round when looking for a new rifle (FN) when they wanted to go to a semi and full auto rifle. Gave good ballistics but the U.S. wouldn't back down on wanting the equivalent of the 30-06 settling for the 7.62 Nato round. They had to re-engineer the Fn-Fal because of the size of the cartridge. Maybe we need to talk to the British Army, they seem to have some good ideas back in their day. Just a few thoughts. Good Luck.......

I would'nt go there, the current Brit service gun is junk costing billions to sort out!

Just go back to good ole' 308.

I bets Geoff Cooper is turning in his grave!

Nath.

[Old Ironsights]

Yeah, a M-14. What's so hard to understand... now, admittedly the rifle weighs more, the ammo weighs more... but since we seem to have a much more vehicle oriented infantry, is that really such a big deal? If I were going into battle, I'd much rather have an M-14 than a M-16.

+1

I understand that Road Marches are out of vogue in Basic too...

For better or worse, the Infantry is almost completely mechanized anymore, so the weight of a Basic Load should be almost moot.

Though I'm REALLY impressed with KelTech's entre' to the EBR realm with the 7.62x51 RFB. Put an 18"-20" bbl on that bad boy and you've got a heckofa weapon that any righty or lefty can use at about 1/2 to 2/3 the weight of an M14/M1-SOCOM...

[model55]

What would be a great help is if we went to the fight with the simple idea to win.Keep the paper shufflers out of it.Some of the great generation are rolling in their graves watching this! The 308 based calibers would be a big help but these people who dodged any kind of service except to themselves (politicians) need to shut up and let our soldiers fight !It the words of my father "Iraq should be a glass desert by now!"

[Griff]

A cartridge that will put an adversary down and out with one good hit rather than needing half a magazine to stop one skinny-arsed fanatic.

Isn't this the same argument regarding the anemic .38 Colt vs. the .45ACP from the Moro Rebellion. IMO, it's a no brainer... but as usual, it ain't necessarily our military leaders that have sold this 5.56 cartridge. Frankly, as I understand it, it's our involvement with groups like NATO, SEATO and their ilk that have, thru treaty, forced us to adopt this "pasture poodle cartridge" as Doc so eloquently put it!

[Old Ironsights]

The M-16 and 5.56nato cartridge were not ment for primary military rifle. Officially is was a secondary rifle, with the M-14 being the primary rifle. ...

I thought that was the excuse for the M1 Carbine... (Garand = Primary, M1=secondary/sidearm replacement...)

[model55]

If I remember correctly General Curtis Le May was one of the big backers on this and he was air Force so I'm not sure if my head is in it's usual hang out or by some contorted reason I'm right about that.Never have been able to warm up to the black rifle myself.

[Doc Hudson]

Isn't this the same argument regarding the anemic .38 Colt vs. the .45ACP from the Moro Rebellion. IMO, it's a no brainer... but as usual, it ain't necessarily our military leaders that have sold this 5.56 cartridge. Frankly, as I understand it, it's our involvement with groups like NATO, SEATO and their ilk that have, thru treaty, forced us to adopt this "pasture poodle cartridge" as Doc so eloquently put it!

Actually Griff, it was the other way around.

We browbeat NATO, and SEATO into adopting the 5.56 cartridge as standard for all member military establishments. We had a helluva time getting the British, Aussies and Germans to get on board, but since we were the 800-pound gorilla at the negotiating table, we got our way.

Now that our people are starting to see the light, our NATO partners are resisting the necessity to go to the additional expense of adopting a new cartridge and new weapons systems to go with it.

I suppose you could say that we are hoist with a petard of our own building.

BTW, IMO the .308/7.62mm NATO is definitely the cartridge to beat. And that ain't likely!

[Rusty]

Here we sit using common sense trying to argue the actions of our Gov't. What's wrong with that picture?

[O.S.O.K.]

For an interim round and solution, I would personally like to see them start doing uprades on the current rifles to 6.5 Grendel. Just a new barrel, bolt head and mag. Almost as effective as the 7.62x51 and actually shoots flatter out to longer ranges with high retained energies.

Its the answer.

And at the same time - yes definately issue out all of the m14's that we have available. That should be done right now period.

[pokey]

And at the same time - yes definately issue out all of the m14's that we have available. That should be done right now period.

they are already doing this, on a limited basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... sman_Rifle

[Doc Hudson]

The M-16 and 5.56nato cartridge were not ment for primary military rifle. Officially is was a secondary rifle, with the M-14 being the primary rifle. ...

I thought that was the excuse for the M1 Carbine... (Garand = Primary, M1=secondary/sidearm replacement...)

The initial planned use for the M-16, as per General Curtis LeMay's idea was to use the M-16 as a replacement for the .38 S&W Special revolvers used by Air Force Security Police. The Stoner sent Jack Kennedy a couple to play with. jack, Bobby, Teddy and some of the other members of the Kennedy Clan went out on their boat and had a ball shooting the M-16. JFK fell in love with the M-16.

Some one, JFK, McNamara or someone else came up with the bright idea of equiping ARVN (Army Republic Viet Nam) with the M-16 with the idea that these little fellows couldn't hump an M-14 and a combat pack of ammo through the jungles. (I guess that particular genius never saw the loads that Vietnamese porters ordinarily carried with no exceptional effort.)

From that it was a short jump to the idea of equiping US troops with the little black rifle. After that everything is history, including the many men killed because the LBR either jammed, or failed to stop a charging VC,

From there, we started leaning on NATO and SEATO Allies to adopt the 5.56mm cartridge, just as we'd browbeaten them into adopting the 7.62 NATO some ten years earlier. Due to the epense and aggravation, our allies resisted changing calibers and rifles, but we twisted their arms into it eventually.

[tomtex]

What is needed is the Match King open tip bullet on the 5.56 mm cartridges ,in our M-16 & M-4 carbine ( it has a 14.5 " barrel ) for ranges out to 200m. Beyond this range a longer barrel and heaver bullet is needed . What I would suggest is a Bull-pup rifle design ,that will give our troops a compact battle package with else change barrels, and using the match king open tip bullet on the cartridge ,this open tip rd is now legal on the battle field per our US/ DOD, and is in use by our Marine corp now. What cartridge to put the match king bullet on , maybe the 7.62x51m, 6.5 Grendel, 7-mm em-2 ,the 6.8 REM with longer barrel, 300 Savage, 6-mm ppc ?

[Griff]

All I know is that when I arrived in Siagon I traded my M-16 for a 1928-A1 Tommy gun and never looked back. On our team we only had two guys carry the EBR.

[rimrock]

There plenty of great EBR platforms already using .308 if that's the platform that remains most viable, so ditching the .223 would not be that big a deal, relatively speaking, for DoD. The real problem is that our troops are carrying 100+# packs, which is too heavy. There's no way to carry 3-400 rounds of .308 in battle. And, the philosophy of using .223 to take 7 BG off the field is now ineffective where BG could care less about their fellow warriors. DoD needs to stop training for shoot to stop, and start training (again) to shoot to kill. There aren't enough marksmen in our military because its too costly for most civilians to hunt or develop shooting skills before those skills become a high demand item for war. We have CMP and National Matches as a federal desire to train marksmen, but the media and government in general say guns must be eliminated from our society. So, you have military personnel who have subconscious guidance that shooting close is good enough if the BG runs off today. He just will come back tomorrow to even up the odds. There's just too little common sense in this country today.

[JReed]

What is needed is the Match King open tip bullet on the 5.56 mm cartridges ,in our M-16 & M-4 carbine ( it has a 14.5 " barrel ) for ranges out to 200m.

The match king goes against the Hauge(sp?) convention as it is an expanding bullet. Hence we use FMJ.

As far as the idea that we are vehicle infantry isn't all true. Yes we aren't marching 50 miles of open terrain (unless it is in the mountains of Afghanistan)but patrolling in an urban environment is an easy task. Compared to past wars today's infantry carries a lot more weight. Between the weight of our body armor (50lbs) and a pack (another 50lbs) we still have to hump our weapon (ussually two weapons an M-4 and a M9) and ammo. The M-14 is a good weapon but it is heavy along with the ammo that goes with it. That is why I like the concept of the AR10 in .243.

For the argument that the M-14 is better since it is semi only there is no basis. Ever since the M16A2 came out they have been semi with an option to fire 3 round burst. Going full auto is just not an option for the standered rifleman.

[Griff]

<snip>There's just too MUCH common sense in this country today.

There. Fixed that.

"Common" = 4 a : widespread, general <common knowledge> b : characterized by a lack of privilege or special status <common people> c : just satisfying accustomed criteria

"Sense" = capacity for effective application of the powers of the mind as a basis for action or response

No, what this country needs is more UNcommon GOOD sense.

[gundownunder]

Considering the 5.56 or 223 was originally designed as a varmint cartridge I am stumped as to why anyone would consider it as a good medium size target caliber, and using a heavier than standard bullet may make it hit harder but it wont do anything for its range or trajectory.
The 6.5 has been proven effective on man size targets and has all the other positives covered and only an increase in ammo weight against it. If an infantryman is restricted to 200 rounds instead of 300 but doesn't have to shoot every bogie twice wouldn't that make him better off?
Just did a quick search on the Grendel, whats not to like?
http://www.65grendel.com/

[Canuck Bob]

This thread is heart breaking. As a Canadian Combat Soldier I had real confidence in my FNC1 and FNC3. They were excellent tested battle rifles in the African bush and open desert combat. I felt sorry for our fine American allies fighting with a gopher rifle!

We had the best in the 7.62 Nato and the FN or M14. Now we got toys made out of aluminum with gadgets all over them which required shortening the barrels. I understand many battle rifles are sporting 14 to 16" barrels. That is approaching 22 Hornet ballistics with FMJs!

Your also right about many angry American allies. Not with your fine, brave, and loyal battle soldiers but the politicians in the Pentagon. All armies fight the way they should fight based on thier equipment and tactics. Canada will never have the heavy weapon and aerial support and technology of the American Forces. No one has! Our kids are saddled with a substandard battle rifle when our equipment and tactics require more sustained close quarter infantry action. Our kids and yours are suffering because somebody somewhere wanted to sell substandard battle rifles.

Jeff Cooper once quoted an old but active Marine Gunnery Sargaent regarding the gopher rifles,"I ain't got time to wait for them to bleed to death." Says it all.

[tomtex]

At this time, the Marine Corp is issuing the 5 56mm cartridge with the match king open tip bullets ,for use in the M-16 and M4 carbine which better than 5.56 ball for engagements out to 300m, but what is needed is a cartridge that can reach the enemy out to 900m. NATO has looked at the 6.5 Grendel the 7mm-GM-2 British, and should look at the new 30 Cal Remington AR cartridge as well as the 6.5 Grendel.

This new Rem 30 cartridge is said to closely match the 7.62 NATO but is below it in performance, with its 124 gr bullet . Yet fits the M-16/M4 rifle as does the 6.5 Grendel, and all they need are different bolt assemblies and barrels ,all new bullets should be the match king open tip's or better. If the US Military is looking for a new rifle, they should look at the Bull-pup design, and use no more black rifle colors, they gets to hot in the sun.

[243dave]

IMO the troops need a better round right now. Issue them the MK-262 (77gr hpbt) ammo until the decision of what cartridge/weapon will replace the m-4. The MK-262 ammo is a good improvement in killing power, range and accuracy. It doesn't violate the Hague convention because the bullet was made for targets and not made as a expanding bullet, even though it does expand. Plus Iraq and Afganistan are not signers of the Hague and they don't abide by any rules so why should we care. We are not fighting an organized army just a bunch of organized terrorists who deserve the best expanding bullets made. The mk-262 ammo has been in use for some years, here is a article about them. http://www.gunsandammo.com/content/blac ... -262-mod-1

[BigSky56]

We've cussed the m16 before, the 223 has its place in a different rifle delivery system and maybe in a urban setting at close distance, the round is useless in jungle or long distance warfare. That said we arent fighting WW2 its guerrilla warfare you have to out guerrilla the guerrilla, setting up ambushes and taking them out in their own back yard. As long as the perfumed princes at the pentagon are calling the shots kids are going to die it hasnt changed since the 60's. For open country we should be using a 30 cal battle rifle.The troops would be better off if the used semi and not the the burst and FA. A 55 gr fmj 223 is a wicked little beast they tumble and cavitate in the human body. danny

[crow]

Different cartridges/rifle combinations have different value depending where they are used.

SMGs, Assault Rifles and Battle Rifles have worth in different environments.

Tankies love a SMG....

Assault Rifles....a exSAS mate of mine preferred a short barrelled M-16 to a SMG but his training made him an exquisite shot...this is training FAR beyond the average soldier. He very much liked the add-on available for the M-16/AR-15 rifles.

His favourite however was the SLR (Australian version of the FN FAL) a Battle Rifle in 7.62x54.

Bullpup designs look wrong to me, but I do understand their advantages....avoid the Steyr that the Australian army uses though...the British Enfield is a better weapon in that design.

Other problem is even if you gave general infantry .338 Lapua Magnums...many would be incapable, at existing training levels, to take advantage of long range cartridges.

There is also the issue of combat efficiency, and how many individual soldiers are actively and aggressively using all their skill and training to engage the enemy...not just shooting in their general direction. This can be a major factor and something that small elite groups rely upon to punch above their weight.

Efficiency is the measure of effective and aggressive leadership, high performance of tactical teamwork under fire, battle experience, and each member's knowledge of the others' capabilities and the support of each member for each other and the unit as a whole. Of these four parameters, the efficiency of a combat unit is by far the most important. A high order of efficiency reduces casualties, increases morale, and--unless the enemy has overwhelming strength--increases the unit's effectiveness. The efficiency of a unit will also rise or fall according to which side has the most and best weapons. The measure of combat effectiveness is the ratio of the casualties of a given force to the total casualties over a certain period.

I think the suggestion of the .243 or even a 25-08 (6.5) are very good options...the 6.5mm has a very good B.C. mild shooting and capable of reaching out.

[CJM]

I just wonder what would have been if MacArthur hadn't been such a skinflint and the M1 Garand had been issued in the 276 Pederson cartridge for which it had been designed. With a 10-shot, not 8-shot, clip and a 8.5 lb, instead of 10lb, rifle. Then you reduce the 276 cartridge in the 1950's for controllability in auto-fire, and get something with a little more power than the current 6.8 SPC, and a lot more bullet weight and power than the 5.56 NATO. Put it in a reduced M14 full-auto design and have a battle rifle that could withstand the test of time much better than the M16 has done.

[Bruce Scott]

NATO troops in the Afghanistan war are reporting that most enemy engagement are beyond 300m and out to 800m, and the current NATO 5.56mm service cartright we use ,is none effective beyond 300m,

What is the enemy using and how effective are his weapons at these ranges?

There is an interesting article here http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/03/army_m14_032210w/ that discusses the M14 EBR which is being provided two per squad as a "short term solution".

[missionary5155]

Good morning
It would be an easy economic fix IF the establishment just adopted the Rusky 7.63x39 cartrige in the AR Upper and our troops return fire back at those other guys what they are receiving. The AR system works.. is far more accurate than any AK.. and the re-supply ammo distribution is really simplified. A little after action police call and everyone is topped off.
But as stated above... Our government will never do anything unless a long term panel of overpriced suits continue to study the situation for years with no regard how many lives it costs.
Every tank modification I saw that was practicle and made sence happened in the field and were trooper instigated. No suits, no studies... If the suits and studies were all we have .. our tankers would still be in Normandy waiting for some panel to figure out how to cut through a hedgerow.
Mike in Peru Armor 71-74

[firefuzz]

As was stated earlier, the AR15/M16 was never designed as a MBR, but a replacement for secondary weapons, and the original design was for a cartridge effective out to 300yds...and for that purpose it actually serves just fine in it's original configuration. The main problem is the shortening of the barrel and resultant loss of velocity, the primary ingrediant in the cartridge.

But, as was also stated earlier, most of our troops are now vehicle oriented and the shorter barrels are desireable in this type of environment, it seems a compromise between the 14.5" "carbine" and the 20" "rifle" and a larger bullet in the 6.5-7mm range could be reached. The 7.62 NATO/.308 is a fine cartridge, but not the end all of military rounds.

I researched both the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC for over a year and then bought the 6.5 Grendel in a 20" barrel configuration. It's accuracy out to 600 yds, the longest range I ever got to shoot at, was outstanding and it maintains it's velocity and energy far better than the 6.8 or 7.62x51.

I agree that we need to revamp our MBR, but I don't agree with going back to the M14, which BTW I have a great fondness for.

Rob

[tomtex]

For an interim round and solution, I would personally like to see them start doing uprades on the current rifles to 6.5 Grendel. Just a new barrel, bolt head and mag. Almost as effective as the 7.62x51 and actually shoots flatter out to longer ranges with high retained energies.

Its the answer.

And at the same time - yes definately issue out all of the m14's that we have available. That should be done right now period.

I agree with the above, just do a search on the 6.5 Grendel, this cartridge is said to be better than the NATO 7.62. Yet you can fit 24 Grendel rds into the M-16 30 rd magazine .The new 30 Remington AR is said to be just below the performance level of the 7.62. The Remington 6.8 is said to be only a slight improvement, over the 5.56 boll ammo, because of the 14.5" barrel on the M-4 .

[COSteve]

Deleted

[two bit okie]

all of the above are correct. However killing the enemy, by concept means bringing a violent end to their activity. It does appear that the politicians dont mind our guy being kia or wia, but we cant hurt the enemy.

I was never in any branch of the military, but it appears that the Marines have the idea of killing the bad guys is imminently prefered to the other way around. It does appear that Army commanders have far to much concern for collateral damage and casualties.

As the media pushes the idea that perception equals fact, we need to give the bad guys the perception that shooting at american soldiers will get them killed, and their families, and their dogs and sheep.

JMO

[model55]

We need to make them believe that Genghis Khan was a nice guy-then their hearts and minds will follow!

[Bronco]

Howdy,

It is my understanding that when better powders were developed the military 308 was equivalent to the old 30-06. All these newer round that are being talked about fail to keep in mind that the military has a lot of full auto weapon that use the 308. Common cartridges have a lot of benefits when you at the end of the supply line. New platform for the 308 or bring out the M 14's again gets my vote.

John

[tomtex]

So are the British Army, in Afghanistan.

[tman]

ar 10

[Lawyer Daggit]

308 winchester. It can handle long range shots, functions well in semi auto's and does not require an over size firearm (ie AR 10).

.556 was designed for shooting soviet conscripts who will 'lie down and die' and use being wounded as a way out of the conflict- it is not designed for use against fanatics who will not stop short of death.

Given limits against expanding ammo and need for ammo that can handle longer shots, I do not think anything under the old 7x57 power level is really suitable and I would prefer a larger surface area to increase stopping power- consequently my favouring the 7.62 NATO.

[tman]

i would quess that with today's technology and use of plastics in firearms, the military could come out with a light weight 16" barreled .762 that would fit the bill. i think it's hard to beat the .308 for this purpose. we need a modern rifle built around this cartridge.

[J Miller]

tman,

I'm not sure a 16" barrel would be of any benefit with the 7.62x51. I don't think it would burn the powder completely and in the end (or front) there would be a tremendous muzzle flash and blast. Not at all conducive to efficient military use.
I think the shortest that would be of any use would be 20".

Joe

[jeepnik]

If I remember correctly General Curtis Le May was one of the big backers on this and he was air Force so I'm not sure if my head is in it's usual hang out or by some contorted reason I'm right about that.Never have been able to warm up to the black rifle myself.

Yep, LeMay was the first to see the benefit of the AR/small caliber platform. But, let's put that into perspective. One I'm very familiar with, as I was an airedale. When the USAF became a separate service, it got pretty much the bottom of the barrel, as far as small arms was concerned from the USA. But it didn't matter. Back then, the only concern was base security. So the Air Force got a bunch of used up M-1 carbines, 1911's and various makes of .38 revolvers. Down the road a few years, they were in even worse shape. LeMay understood that he needed a new "carbine" to replace the M-1 carbines. He looked about, and felt, and pretty rightly, that for base security, and such as existed at the time, the AR was a pretty good idea. Still is for that type of work.

The problem was, a bunch of army types saw it and decided it would be a heck of alot easier to carry in the various terrains of a little garden spot known as Viet Nam. And it was. Problem was, it just wasn't ever designed for that type of environment, or service. Those of us who were around back then remember all of the problems that ensued. All of which brings us to today's sad state of affairs.

I've said before, and I'll say again. The Springfield M1A Scout/Squad concept it what we really should have had back then. It's a bit lighter, shorter and handier. It's stout as all get out, and it puts a round down range (and a darned sight further down range that the M-16) that has sufficient striking power to accomplish the mission.

By the way, I've got a couple of youngsters that some may remember put in more than a little time, with a bunch of hooligans called Marines, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The older one "found" himself an old M-14, and the younger, less refined one picked up AK-47's along the way. Seems that 7.62x39, while not quite as good at long range as the 7.62x51, was darned handy in a little town called Fallujah, BOTH times he and his fellow cutthorats had to take the city (shades of a liitle place called SEA, take the ground, give it back, and take it again, sometimes chairbound idiots prove they never learn).

[tman]

tman,

I'm not sure a 16" barrel would be of any benefit with the 7.62x51. I don't think it would burn the powder completely and in the end (or front) there would be a tremendous muzzle flash and blast. Not at all conducive to efficient military use.
I think the shortest that would be of any use would be 20".

Joe

like to see a comparison between 16", 20", and 24" barreled .308's. 308 are loaded with fast burning powder, conductive to use as compared to 30-06 22" and 300 wm's 24" barrels. while the other 2 will always win out velocity wise, the short barrelled .308 ain't all that far behind in practical shooting at combat ranges. now, it wouldn't replace a sniper rifle, but a heck a lot more effective than the current m4. just my opinion.