Olof Larsson Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 16 hours ago, shep854 said: For the plates to work, the shooter has to be a good shot and consistently hit center mass... And the enemy has to cooperate and expose his torso to be hit, without having to get through a barrier first. Not that the 6,8x51 is unlikely to punch through a lvl4 plate without using tungsten core AP. And if you use tungsten core AP, 5,56 and 7,62 will get through as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 5 minutes ago, bojan said: Exactly. Our local logistics functioned and still function w/o problems with 3 calibers in the squad (7.62x39 or 5.56 for rifles, 7.62x54R for LMG, 7.9x57 for DMR), none can convince me that US logistics can not function with two. Well, they where capable of handling .45ACP, .30 Carbine, .30-06 stripper-clips, .30-06 en-bloc clips and .30-06 in cloth belts in the second word war. If they want to simplyfy supply, getting rid of everything for the 120mm tank guin, that isn't APFSDS-T and HE-MP-T will probably make much more sence. Or having the US Army, USMC and USAF use the same personel gear. Having the US Army get a sustantial number of rifles and machine guns, in a new caliber, that offers no qualitative improvement over existing cartridges (as opposed to caseless or CTA) and that will not be used be any other US forces or allies, will only make supply harder. Even more so as the US Army will still have to continue to supply 5,56 and 7,62 to it's front line troops, even in units that uses these guns. Because you are not going to replace the M4 for all troops in a unit with these guns, and you are not going to replace the FN MAG's on the Bradleys and Abrams either. Not unless they will bring a new machinegun and a dozen barrels with every pallet of munition. But I guess that this is another case of the US Army acquiring gear for the last war. In this case the guns they need in Afganistan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 Some claim that the older M16A1 with it's 1:12 twist barrel (and M193 ammo) had more lethal terminal effects than the later 1:7 barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmgill Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 Isn't this what Anthony Williams has been preaching for a few years now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 8 minutes ago, rmgill said: Isn't this what Anthony Williams has been preaching for a few years now? More something along the lines of the 6,5 Grendel ISTR. So halfway between the 5.56x45 on the one hand and the 7,62x51 and this new monstrosity on the other hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17thfabn Posted April 22, 2022 Author Share Posted April 22, 2022 5 hours ago, shep854 said: For rifle and SAW, same caliber makes sense. A larger caliber for DMR and plt wps would be a nice complement. U.S. Army weapons squads in light rifle platoons have 7.62 mm machine guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 1 hour ago, 17thfabn said: U.S. Army weapons squads in light rifle platoons have 7.62 mm machine guns. Indeed. I was unclear; I was trying to say 'platoon weapons', ie, weapons squad, not 'weapons platoon'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted April 22, 2022 Share Posted April 22, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Olof Larsson said: More something along the lines of the 6,5 Grendel ISTR. So halfway between the 5.56x45 on the one hand and the 7,62x51 and this new monstrosity on the other hand. IMO biggest gain, and research should be centered about it should be lighter ammo for LMG w/o sacrificing performances (including API ammo) up the 800m. Edited April 22, 2022 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted May 4, 2022 Share Posted May 4, 2022 A comparison to the M14... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTK Ciar Posted May 9, 2022 Share Posted May 9, 2022 (edited) On 4/22/2022 at 9:51 AM, rmgill said: Isn't this what Anthony Williams has been preaching for a few years now? Yes and no. Williams made some very reasonable assumptions about limiting factors on the GPC concept which the Army has ignored (or designed around, depending on who you believe). He thought the GPC's weapon system had to stay light and avoid adding to the soldier's burden; the 6.8x51mm cartridge and rifle are both significantly heavier. He thought the GPC had to have light enough recoil to keep the light rifle manageable; the 6.8x51mm has more recoil (though gentled somewhat by the heavier rifle), but the Army accommodates this with doctrinal changes emphasizing semiautomatic fire. He thought the GPC had to avoid fragmentation in tissue (and since he was pitching his ideas to the MoD, he was right because the UK gov cares about such things) but the US Army clearly has other ideas. The M855A1 was designed to fragment more reliably in tissue, and the 6.8x51mm service round is likely to have a similar fragmenting design. He thought the GPC chamber pressure had to be low enough to avoid undue throat erosion, but supposedly the new rifle avoids this problem with better metallurgy (I am dubious of that, but we'll see). Williams liked the 6.5mm Grendel for his GPC because it checked all of his boxes, but the US Army decided to have a different set of boxes. Edited May 9, 2022 by TTK Ciar brevity, clarity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 Once again, it shows that the British, in 1945, with their .280 round were closer to what has been needed for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 (edited) No. Because .280 was not intermediate and did not enable effective automatic fire from the rifles. It only looked good compared to a stupidity that were 7.62x51 rifles. "One round to rule them all" has always been proved to be very bad solution. Even if you unify section firepower (which can be done by 6.5 Grendel...) do you really want to leave Plt or Co w/o anything longer ranged and more effective*? *For MGs important part of their diet is API, which will always be better in 7.62 than 6.5. Edited May 10, 2022 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep854 Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 An interesting discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 4 hours ago, bojan said: No. Because .280 was not intermediate and did not enable effective automatic fire from the rifles. It only looked good compared to a stupidity that were 7.62x51 rifles. "One round to rule them all" has always been proved to be very bad solution. Even if you unify section firepower (which can be done by 6.5 Grendel...) do you really want to leave Plt or Co w/o anything longer ranged and more effective*? *For MGs important part of their diet is API, which will always be better in 7.62 than 6.5. Well, the advantage with the 7,62x51 was that virtually all rifles and machineguns in the west could be converted to the new caliber. Sometimes even without a complete barrel swap. This was because the 7,62x51 used the same (or nearly the same) case head, as most other military rifle cartridges, because if was slightly shorter than all other rifle cartridges and used the most common bore size. And considerng that the new NATO standard was only supposed to be a interim solution as a rifle caliber avaiting SALVO/NIBLICK/SPIW it made sence in it's own way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 (edited) 7.62x51mm is not bad thing to convert mix of 30-06, 7.9x57, .303 etc for machinegun use, but it's use in the new production automatic rifles was... something else. IOW, 7.62x51 + some intermediate caliber should have been adopted (probably also 7.62mm, in order to make best use of tooling) but US sang a tune and everyone danced to it. And then US has decided to do face heel turn and adopt 5.56 in the '60s, just as Europe has rearmed with 7.62x51 rifles. Edited May 10, 2022 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted May 10, 2022 Share Posted May 10, 2022 1 hour ago, bojan said: 7.62x51mm is not bad thing to convert mix of 30-06, 7.9x57, .303 etc for machinegun use, but it's use in the new production automatic rifles was... something else. IOW, 7.62x51 + some intermediate caliber should have been adopted (probably also 7.62mm, in order to make best use of tooling) but US sang a tune and everyone danced to it. And then US has decided to do face heel turn and adopt 5.56 in the '60s, just as Europe has rearmed with 7.62x51 rifles. The problem was that "something else" was the US Armys obsession with the new and revolutionary flechette-firing SPIW/SALVO/NIBLICK/FRP/ACR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 13 hours ago, bojan said: No. Because .280 was not intermediate and did not enable effective automatic fire from the rifles. It only looked good compared to a stupidity that were 7.62x51 rifles. "One round to rule them all" has always been proved to be very bad solution. Even if you unify section firepower (which can be done by 6.5 Grendel...) do you really want to leave Plt or Co w/o anything longer ranged and more effective*? *For MGs important part of their diet is API, which will always be better in 7.62 than 6.5. If .280 was 130 or 140grains at 2500fps and this new round is 130 or 140grains at 3000fps, doesn't that make the .280 rather more intermediate than this new thing? I suppose if no, then you think that this new round will likely suffer from the same problem - no usable automatic fire (in the rifle)? I wonder how reloadable the 277SIG cases will be, not that it matters to me, of course, given that I'm an oppressed subject with no right to own any such thing (unless someone chambers a bolt action rifle with it, I suppose.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, DB said: If .280 was 130 or 140grains at 2500fps and this new round is 130 or 140grains at 3000fps, doesn't that make the .280 rather more intermediate than this new thing? .280 was more intermediate than this madness, but it was still "MG optimized" and performance in rifles in automatic fire would be iffy. It wasbetter than what was adopted (7.62x51) but worse than purpose intermediate calibers that could have been. Quote I suppose if no, then you think that this new round will likely suffer from the same problem - no usable automatic fire (in the rifle)? Absolutely no usable full auto capability from a 16" rifle with 6.8. I also want to see how LMG will turn out, since it is finally lighter than PKM... Edited May 11, 2022 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 On 4/22/2022 at 7:27 AM, bojan said: Yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with 5.56/5.45 in rifles/carbines. It is always attempts to use them in the LMG/DMR that suck. And US is obsessed with "same caliber in the squad", which prevents normal solution - 5.56 rifles and 7.62x51 LMG and DMR. This. It's a caliber in search of a problem. In a low intensity conflict, up your squad MG and DM. In any peer conflict, your rifles aren't the main casualty causing effector. The scope seems interesting; ditch the high pressure caliber in search of a peer opponent who you can't focus a crew serve on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 14 hours ago, bojan said: 7.62x51mm is not bad thing to convert mix of 30-06, 7.9x57, .303 etc for machinegun use, but it's use in the new production automatic rifles was... something else. IOW, 7.62x51 + some intermediate caliber should have been adopted (probably also 7.62mm, in order to make best use of tooling) but US sang a tune and everyone danced to it. And then US has decided to do face heel turn and adopt 5.56 in the '60s, just as Europe has rearmed with 7.62x51 rifles. Your T.O.&E. of an infantry squad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 14 hours ago, DB said: If .280 was 130 or 140grains at 2500fps and this new round is 130 or 140grains at 3000fps, doesn't that make the .280 rather more intermediate than this new thing? I suppose if no, then you think that this new round will likely suffer from the same problem - no usable automatic fire (in the rifle)? I wonder how reloadable the 277SIG cases will be, not that it matters to me, of course, given that I'm an oppressed subject with no right to own any such thing (unless someone chambers a bolt action rifle with it, I suppose.) The .277 Fury is more like the .280 Ross or the .276 Enfield, but with a much smaller case and from a much shorter barrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted May 11, 2022 Share Posted May 11, 2022 20 hours ago, bojan said: 7.62x51mm is not bad thing to convert mix of 30-06, 7.9x57, .303 etc for machinegun use, but it's use in the new production automatic rifles was... something else. IOW, 7.62x51 + some intermediate caliber should have been adopted (probably also 7.62mm, in order to make best use of tooling) but US sang a tune and everyone danced to it. And then US has decided to do face heel turn and adopt 5.56 in the '60s, just as Europe has rearmed with 7.62x51 rifles. The real problem is that the Us is a global force and still believes that there is one solution that fits every scenario. The one calibre for all infantry weapons idea is as sound as the universal camouflage for all terrains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted May 12, 2022 Share Posted May 12, 2022 On 5/11/2022 at 5:30 AM, bojan said: 7.62x51mm is not bad thing to convert mix of 30-06, 7.9x57, .303 etc for machinegun use, but it's use in the new production automatic rifles was... something else. IOW, 7.62x51 + some intermediate caliber should have been adopted (probably also 7.62mm, in order to make best use of tooling) but US sang a tune and everyone danced to it. And then US has decided to do face heel turn and adopt 5.56 in the '60s, just as Europe has rearmed with 7.62x51 rifles. It is possible that the US was influenced by not having a proper squad LMG in WW2, using the BAR as a weapon to supplement the fire of the M1 Garand rather than being having an LMG as the squad / section firepower. If a lightweight (relatively speaking) shoulder fired automatic weapon (particularly after the bipod was discarded), could effectively use a full powered round, then why could not every infantryman be equipped with a shoulder fired weapon able to fire a full powered round? This obviously is a fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptLuke Posted May 17, 2022 Share Posted May 17, 2022 (edited) On 5/11/2022 at 9:16 PM, DougRichards said: It is possible that the US was influenced by not having a proper squad LMG in WW2, using the BAR as a weapon to supplement the fire of the M1 Garand rather than being having an LMG as the squad / section firepower. If a lightweight (relatively speaking) shoulder fired automatic weapon (particularly after the bipod was discarded), could effectively use a full powered round, then why could not every infantryman be equipped with a shoulder fired weapon able to fire a full powered round? This obviously is a fallacy. The original concept of the BAR was the misguided one you talk about, though even the US dropped that very quickly. The BAR's weight crept up to 8-9kg, heavier than a PKM, so well able to handle a full power cartridge in full auto fire. For use as a SAW, the BAR wasn't optimal, but to be fair, there were no LMG alternatives when it was adopted (remember the BAR entered service two years after the Chauchat). The US had a "good enough" solution and, when superior alternatives (e.g., ZB vz. 26, then MG34) emerged the US wasn't equipped either doctrinally or monetarily to use them. While it seems like a no brainer that a Garand/vz. 26 clone based squad would have been a better choice, given the financial and organizational emphasis limitations of the US in the 30s, it was probably a choice of bolt action rifles and a Vz. 26 vs. Garands and the BAR, so one could argue the US made the right choice: modernizing the weakest element of the squad while retaining an acceptable, if outdated, SAW. Right or wrong, US troops seemed content with the BAR in both WWII, even after combat experience vs. the MG34/42, and in Korea. Even given all that, the US just missed getting an MG42 copy working, so it wasn't like no one understood the issue. The big US screw-up, and regression to the original BAR thinking, was the M14A1, though, again to be fair, lots of other countries made the same mistake with the heavy barrel FAL. Edited May 17, 2022 by CaptLuke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olof Larsson Posted May 17, 2022 Share Posted May 17, 2022 46 minutes ago, CaptLuke said: The original concept of the BAR was the misguided one you talk about, though even the US dropped that very quickly. The BAR's weight crept up to 8-9kg, heavier than a PKM, so well able to handle a full power cartridge in full auto fire. For use as a SAW, the BAR wasn't optimal, but to be fair, there were no LMG alternatives when it was adopted (remember the BAR entered service two years after the Chauchat). The US had a "good enough" solution and, when superior alternatives (e.g., ZB vz. 26, then MG34) emerged the US wasn't equipped either doctrinally or monetarily to use them. While it seems like a no brainer that a Garand/vz. 26 clone based squad would have been a better choice, given the financial and organizational emphasis limitations of the US in the 30s, it was probably a choice of bolt action rifles and a Vz. 26 vs. Garands and the BAR, so one could argue the US made the right choice: modernizing the weakest element of the squad while retaining an acceptable, if outdated, SAW. Right or wrong, US troops seemed content with the BAR in both WWII, even after combat experience vs. the MG34/42, and in Korea. Even given all that, the US just missed getting an MG42 copy working, so it wasn't like no one understood the issue. The big US screw-up, and regression to the original BAR thinking, was the M14A1, though, again to be fair, lots of other countries made the same mistake with the heavy barrel FAL. For possible US SAW's in world war I, there was the Hotchkiss Portative (allready in US service as the "Benét–Mercié Machine Rifle, Caliber .30 U. S. Model of 1909"), there was the US designed Lewis gun, the Madsen and the Berthier M1910, M1911, M1912 and M1916. Of these guns, the Lewis and the Berthier was considered, and the original M1918 was probably the worst option of the three. As for the US failing to copy the MG42, there was also Bill Rugers T10/T23E1 light machine gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now