Forum rules
Welcome to the Leverguns.Com General Discussions Forum. This is a high-class place so act respectable. We discuss most anything here other than politics... politely.
Please post political post in the new Politics forum.
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.
No argument there.
Joe
***Be sneaky, get closer, bust the cap on him when you can put the ball where it counts .***
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
I built a FN FAL with a 16.25" barrel once. The muzzle blast was TERRIBLE with any load or muzzle device. Even 50yrds away hearing protection was mandatory. I took the barrel off and started cutting and crowning a new one back from 21". I had no way of measuring the db's but at 19" the difference was definately getting uncomfortable to unprotected persons 50 yards away. A factory FAL para barrel is 17.35" for comparison.
A 16" 6.5 Grendel muzzle blast was nothing compared to the 7.62/.308.
Rob
Proud to be Christian American and not ashamed of being white.
May your rifle always shoot straight, your mag never run dry, you always have one more round than you have adversaries, and your good mate always be there to watch your back.
Because I can!
Never grow a wishbone where a backbone ought to be.
I've skipped around this thread a bit so I'm sure others have said it weall also..but
O.S.O.K. wrote: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.
+1. Let's do an as-efficient-as-possible in-field (or whatever) 6.5 refit...and get those 14s back out there as well (LATER EDIT: or as Lawyer Daggit and others said, AR10). I don't necessarily think all our boys need/should be carrying the heavy 14 around, just as I thought the 8 shot M-1 Garand was not what most of our guys needed to be lugging around Europe and the Pacific (but instead instead some "Mini-30 type"). but a few per squad/several per company would make sense, maybe more in these "long shot" outposts. The AR format/platform still would seem to be the best for most of the troops, especially for the urban/clearing operations, while putting the 6.5 in it would do just what O.S.O.K. says. We did this (in reverse actually--see Garand above) in WWII and keep repeating. Use the right weapon system for the environment (terrain and "social") we're facing. Let's get our guys what they need to do their job!
Last edited by gak on Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:48 am, edited 3 times in total.
I have never been a fan of either the AR or the .223 round as a battle rifle, and like others think the 7.62 has it all over what is current issue. That said, I read a few days ago that Dr. Fackler, (the Army morgue monster) said, the problem is, the army keeps chopping off the barrels of the rifles to make them handier in vehicles and has in the process emasculated the effectivness of the rifle due to velocity loss.
If this is true, and I don't know if it is, it would be far cheaper and faster to stretch the barrels out to the original 20 inches or maybe longer.
We have had several generations of soliders who think the AR and it's round is a battle rifles and wouldn't be happy carrying the extra weight or a real rifle and real ammo. They have also become recoil brittle to some degree. Maybe their can be retrained...I really don't know.
I think we are comparing several different requirements. First, I spent 24 years in Ranger Bn and SF and I feel the current M4 SOPMOD system is the finest CQB weapon ever made. The bullet has been lacking at times, but my old unit went to the better munitions after lessons learned in Somalia.
When you are looking at longer range engagements such are commonly encountered in the Sand Box, the requirements change for both training and equipment. Most personnel cannot hit a target at the ranges some of you are suggesting on anything other than a safe, flat range. Also, we have systems and doctrine that address long range engagements. They are called light and heavy machine guns, CAS (close air support), mortars, artillery, etc. However, Gen. Stanley McPolitician and the people he and others like him voted into office would rather increase risks to US personnel than hurt any "innocent" personnel in the area of operations. Our systems and people our the best we have ever had. Our leadership is lacking. Throwing more money at a problem will not overcome poor leadership.
Its a shame our country lost the mindset that the purpose of the US military is to kill our enemies and that they have to support that mission no matter what the cost. If the current US mindset existed during the WWII time period, we would probably be a German or Japanese territory.
What the Ranger said. Most of you are stuck in a timewarp that this is 1942. This is an ammo selection problem (thanks to the Hague accords, which we did not sign, and we are not fighting a uniformed army, so it wouldn't matter) and a software (training) problem.
No matter what whizbang super duper round and massive caliber you all think up, you don't have to hump it, water, food, rifle, 30lb of armor, helmet, commo, batteries, maps, and all the other stuff for miles. A 5.56 will certainly kill you quite dead. I never ended up pulling the trigger on targets that shot back but the vast majority of those in my unit and those I worked with later as a civilian did, including at extended distances in Afghanistan.
Most average Joes even with a 4X ACOG are going to have an interesting time making a hit on a camoflauged man sized target at 500m. Training issue, and simply seeing it.
Most of the very long range engagements being noted are NOT rifle vs rifle. It's RPG/Mortar/PKM fire. The response to that is an air strike, or reply with the same (M240, Mk 19, M203, etc, mortars if available) and maneuver the riflemen into contact range.
This is not 1914, firing at individual targets at 800m for an average infantryman is ridiculous. I know TWO guys (both infantry) who have laser ranged, confirmed (found the body) kills with M4s at long range , 450-500m. Both took multiple hits and they are extremely (sniper grade, one in fact was one) good shots. Average grunt in their unit would not make the shot.
With good training and preferably better ammunition such as the new SOST round, the 5.56 will get the job done at any distance you should honestly be swapping rifle rounds.
The M1 and M14, the holy twins to some of you, were 3-4 MOA rifles. No different than the M16 or M4 with irons. Most shooters (MOST.....average rifleman, not one superduper guy) can't hit worth saving a paycheck past 400m with one on a realistic man target at that distance. Ammo, shooter, humidity, whether they ate that morning, stress, etc all factor in.
This is not 1965. The rifle you all apparently despise so much was invented by a MARINE INFANTRYMAN. To say it was intended to be a short range spray gun is stupid. The only reason automatic was added as an option on almost all assault rifles, from the Stg44 to the AK-47 to the M16 is because it was intended to replace both the submachine gun and rifle, and some people didn't like losing the group therapy option. Nobody ever really uses it except in emergencies and despite Vietnam era conscripts dumping 20 round bursts on film to the contrary, every instructor i've ever had/heard/seen/known will bash it into your head, if you're not being overrun by 4,000 screaming Chinese guys, you'd better be on semi.
Some of you will laugh, chuckle or cuss me out. I have no problem with larger calibers (having 8 or 9 .30 caliber rifles in my personal inventory, from .303 and .30-06 to .30 carbine). But there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the M16/M4 platform.
The faults discovered in Vietnam were again, software (stupid human tricks) when bureaucrats tried to tell the designer how to do his job (changing powders, etc) and then failure on the Army level (it's self cleaning!! no cleaning kits!!). The design itself, in original form, worked well, as Special Forces advisors found out. Don't tell me a bunch of Green Berets are Boy Scouts who know nothing about killing people.
Charles wrote:
We have had several generations of soliders who think the AR and it's round is a battle rifles and wouldn't be happy carrying the extra weight or a real rifle and real ammo. They have also become recoil brittle to some degree. Maybe their can be retrained...I really don't know.
The recoil isn't bad when wearing our modern body armor. The problem is the weight. I like the 308 it is a great round and I enjoy shooting it with that said I wouldn't want to carry it if I was on patrol kitted up in all my gear. These days our infantry carries body armor, Camel Back of water, 2 canteens, grenades, M9 pistol (2 15 round mags), M4/M16 (6 30 round mags), and fighting knife. This is just the things he has attached to his armor vest not including what ever other useful things he has on his belt or in any of his pockets or stuffed in his pack. Just those things add up to at least 70lbs then figure if at minimum he is carrying a day patrol pack that weighs another 30lbs and that is if he is lucky and isn't humping a radio also, if so add another 10lbs min.
There are plenty of Marines carrying the M-14 as designated marksman the same with the Army. The 6.5 bears investigation some of you make good points for its use but the 308 just isn't practice for the wide range of infantry use in this day and age.
Jeremy
GySgt USMC Ret
To err is human, To forgive is devine, Neither of which is Marine Corps policy Semper Fidelis
.***