Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > Special Forces Weapons > Weapons Discussion Area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-02-2022, 20:43   #16
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 5,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7624U View Post
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...less-ammo.html

Article sort of blasts the Army about basic load being 140 rounds and heavier.
The new saw gunner has 27lbs of ammo vs 20lbs and half the bullets.
Designers don't carry these things bro. Neither do the profiteers.
In addition, if the last few years have illustrated anything, it's that senior leaders are a lot more concerned about their retirement gig than the welfare of the troops.
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Screen Actors Guild, The Boy Scouts, The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly. These opinions are provided purely as overly sarcastic social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2022, 23:08   #17
7624U
Quiet Professional
 
7624U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Box View Post
Designers don't carry these things bro. Neither do the profiteers.
In addition, if the last few years have illustrated anything, it's that senior leaders are a lot more concerned about their retirement gig than the welfare of the troops.
Trust me I am tracking all Did you see that giant IFV as big as a M-1 tank they want to replace the Bradley with it will be a missile magnet for sure.
__________________
"Make sure your plan fits the terrain or you will be slurping mud puddles”

"Me"
7624U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2022, 15:16   #18
Razor
Quiet Professional
 
Razor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 4,480
A few other considerations on adopting this new rifle on which I haven't seen much discussion:

1) Ammo - I recall reading that units will need to use reduced power ammo to shoot on existing rifle qual ranges due to the 6.8's larger SDZ. How much will that ammo cost vs. the 'go to war' ammo? Will the Army primarily buy low power ammo to support training range requirements, and in doing so will that mean soldiers won't ever get to fire the full-power ammo in training to understand its capabilities? Will the Army build new ranges that support the capabilities of the new ammo? How much of a PIA will it be for units equipped with the XM5 or XM250 to compete for range time on the limited number of these new ranges?

2) Equipment - Most of the soldiers that may be issued this rifle have magazine pouches and bandoliers sized for 5.56 mags. It won't be an insignificant cost to replace all that nylon with new pouches sized for the bigger round (although, since its the same length as existing 7.62 rounds there are already pouches in the system so it won't require a newly designed item).

3) Logistics - Infantry and SOF units get the new rifle/MG/ammo, but everyone else still has to order 5.56 and 7.62, which the close combat guys won't be able to use in their nifty new go-fast guns. Yeah, I can't see anything going wrong with that concept.

4) Existing Small Arms - The Army just started issuing the M110E1 SDMR in 7.62 to infantry units. Will the need for this rifle go away with the new XM5, or will the Army keep it in its close combat units? If they keep it, will they spend the money to rechamber it in 6.8? How about sniper weapon systems (including the new MRAD)- rechamber (where possible), or replace with something that fires the 6.8?
Razor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2022, 19:32   #19
doctom54
Quiet Professional
 
doctom54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Northwest AR
Posts: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK View Post
That's what I read,, AND it's the 140gr from a 16inch barrel.

All/most of the ballistic tables list 20-24 inch barrels, so it's a WAG as to a 1-on-1 comparison.

Here are two charts,,
That's a fair statement on the barrel lengths. The other thing is the .277 Fury is spec'd at 80,000psi. The .270 Winchester at 65,000psi.
BTW my .270 is a Tikka with the barrel cut to 20 inches. I guess I should chrono some ammo.
__________________
"For exercise I recommend vigorous walking... and carrying a gun. The gun’s weight will increase the level of exercise and the possession of a gun on a walk produces real confidence."
Thomas Jefferson
doctom54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2022, 20:39   #20
Box
Quiet Professional
 
Box's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 5,363
logistics isn't really a problem
works out like this -

when "we" got 45s and Glocks - the first place they showed up at group was at BAF
...because the folks at BAF needed that shit more than the ODA
...same went for the first DD uppers / I seemed to see more at BAF or Kabul than the ODA level

Pouches - pfft
non-starter - the solution is simple: '.gov' just buys shitty shitty shitty punches in the most minimal quantities required
...as a result, operators will rush right out and buy something expensive and Gucci out of their own pockets

the profiteers that are in cahoots on the procurement of shitty gear they wont have to use win - because the dot-gov buys a shit ton of product,
the operator wins because they get what they want (even if they do end up buying it themselves)
- problem solved
__________________
Opinions stated in this post are solely those of the author, and in no way reflect the opinions or policies of The Department of Defense, The United States Army, The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, The Screen Actors Guild, The Boy Scouts, The Good, The Bad, or The Ugly. These opinions are provided purely as overly sarcastic social commentary and are not meant to be used for mission planning or navigation.

"Make sure your own mask is secure before assisting others"
-Airplane Safety Briefing
Box is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2022, 23:18   #21
Uman
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 266
I will stir the pot

I did Combat Development/Force Mod at 1st GP.

The new gun and ammo at 80K chamber pressure looks to be a logistic nightmare on parts wear. But maybe something will be different. The plastic ammo. sounds great but we all know it will just take time to. knock brass off its pedestal as. a reliable cartridge case material. Who has not shot old green crusty ammo through their guns?

Had anyone done their research we could have fielded a new cartridge in the 1970s. The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) did a study for the USMC in 1976 which predicted that the optimum single or two cartridge design would be between 6 and 7mm. The 5.56 was to light for wounding/incapacitation and the 7.62NATO to heavy in weight and recoil. In 2015 you should have seen the faces of the USMC Wpns Bn Commander at Quantico when I asked him and his Marines if they had seen the study. Could have heard a pin drop. It is a great study that takes into even carrying the weapon, ammo, recoil control.

The history of high velocity light weight rifleman rifle and ammunition post Korean War is very interesting and the end concept for the projectile would have raised the lethality rate for the rifle above its current rate of 30%. History shows that the rifle lethality rate hovers around 30% in all wars. Think 3 KIA per 30 round magazine due to the chaos of the battle field. Incapacitation rates around 60%.

The main weapons they needed upgrade for light infantry ground combat was the two killers, belt feed LMG and the organic 60/81mm mortars. All that Todd Hodnett long range SO ballistic computer tech need to be pushed over to the MG Tms to get first burst rounds on target other than walking tracers in. On the mortar side we need PGM mortar ammunition. We also need the wheeled vehicle mounted smart mortar system that are out there, basically the Dragon Fire on a JLTV. Mali could have been different if we had pushed for these as then the Team does not have to ask for anyone for anything and it is all weather capable.
Uman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 05:35   #22
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uman View Post

Had anyone done their research we could have fielded a new cartridge in the 1970s. The Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) did a study for the USMC in 1976 which predicted that the optimum single or two cartridge design would be between 6 and 7mm. The 5.56 was to light for wounding/incapacitation and the 7.62NATO to heavy in weight and recoil. In 2015 you should have seen the faces of the USMC Wpns Bn Commander at Quantico when I asked him and his Marines if they had seen the study. Could have heard a pin drop. It is a great study that takes into even carrying the weapon, ammo, recoil control.

The history of high velocity light weight rifleman rifle and ammunition post Korean War is very interesting and the end concept for the projectile would have raised the lethality rate for the rifle above its current rate of 30%. History shows that the rifle lethality rate hovers around 30% in all wars. Think 3 KIA per 30 round magazine due to the chaos of the battle field. Incapacitation rates around 60%.
I think they did...

The UK realized after WWII that 1) The .303 was a week round and 2)more importantly the bolt action was dead to the battlefield.

Hence their development of the FAL/L1A1.

The 70ts was a re-hash of the post-WWII UK work with the .280 British round developed for the FAL/L1A1. The US had a "not invented here" hissy fit and wanted nothing less than a 30 cal, and nixed the FAL/L1A1 for the M14

They forced the 7.62x51 on the world, 20 minutes later the US went to the 5.56x45 and AR family.

ref: 280 British

ref: picture of 30.06, 280 British, and 7.62x51
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 5006 280 762x51.jpg (38.4 KB, 3 views)
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"
JJ_BPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 07:40   #23
Uman
Quiet Professional
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 266
Not invented here hissy fit

Agree with that statement. Plus the USMC Shooting Team, the Army AMU shooters have always had an influence in these decisions. Back then 7.62mm ruled the international competitions.
Uman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 08:55   #24
JJ_BPK
Quiet Professional
 
JJ_BPK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: 18 yrs upstate NY, 30 yrs South Florida, 20 yrs Conch Republic, now chasing G-Kids in NOVA & UK
Posts: 11,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uman View Post
Agree with that statement. Plus the USMC Shooting Team, the Army AMU shooters have always had an influence in these decisions. Back then 7.62mm ruled the international competitions.
Yes they did,, BUTT

Go back to the early 1900's, when the Swedish 6.5x66 was a leading competition round. The 6.5x55 Swed is the near equivalent to today's 6.5 Creemore, without the fancy hi-speed trappings of the .277 Fury

ref: The 6.5 Creedmoor Vs. the 6.5×55 Swedish


It makes one wonder why we kept the 5.56 for 60 years,, maybe the SP4 mafia liked the weight-reduction??
__________________
Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh

"May you be a half hour in heaven before the devil knows you’re dead"

Last edited by JJ_BPK; 06-23-2022 at 13:42.
JJ_BPK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 11:27   #25
Badger52
Area Commander
 
Badger52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western WI
Posts: 6,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_BPK View Post
Yes they did,, BUTT

Go back to the early 1900's, when the Swedish 6.5x66 was a leading competition round. The 6.5x55 Swed is the near equivalent to today's 6.5 Creemore, without the fancy hi-speed trappings of the .277 Fury

ref: The 6.5 Creedmoor Vs. the 6.5×55 Swedish


It makes one wonder why we keep the 5.56 for 60 years,, maybe the SP4 mafia liked the weight-reduction??
A real 6.5x55 Carl Gustaf's scoped with a 4x remains THE favorite "loaner" rifle up at the property where I hunt. Just as 7mm-08 was to be 7x57 with modern powders/pressures, the .260 Rem is the Swede's modern battle buddy. Both of those have excelled for years at checking the competitive shooting & pleasant to shoot boxes.

I admittedly haven't done the research into how this new combo has come upon the scene but wonder if impressions taken from those using Mk.262 were part of that analysis.
__________________
"Civil Wars don't start when a few guys hunt down a specific bastard. Civil Wars start when many guys hunt down the nearest bastards."

The coin paid to enforce words on parchment is blood; tyrants will not be stopped with anything less dear. - QP Peregrino
Badger52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:10.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies