Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crowhunter
Didn't say the AK guy designed the round. Not sure if your whole post was aimed at me.
I hate having to repeat this bit I'M A BRIT.
I do have knowledge of firearms and despite the embarrassment I don't mind admitting I have little experience in shooting, and zero experience in a combat situation.
Basically I'M DISCUSSING MY INTEREST AND LEARNING FROM YOU AT THE SAME TIME
Click to expand...

Yes I was aiming at you.:D

I mistook what you said when you said the AK was was designed by a combat vet, I thought you were also referring to the ammo. Which wasn't a Kalashnikov design.

Still, LF.net isn't for Americans only. There are quite a few SAS and other UK guys there as well as guys from Germany, Finland and maybe even France. What is nice about that site is you can click on their profiles and know exactly where they are coming from. If a guy is in some Super Secret Ninja Squirrel outfit, he will have his info OPSEC'd out but you only get that if the Admins know you are for a fact. Everyone else has to post their real bio.

Why so much focus on tools? Why not more focus on training?
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that. It was the exact conclusion of the discussion over on LF.net.

Guess that comes from having an 11B designation. ;):D

Thank you for your service by the way.
 
I'll get back to you

Gentlemen Thank you for so many replys all of which I have enjoyed. Its 2 15 AM and I must sleep.:)
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, we are in Afghanistan, where YoungSon has repeatedly reported that the Taliban are smart,
well disciplined, and have learned to start engagements at the magic 400m point.

Guess where the soldier's main battle rifle has now run out of gas for immediate/effective engagement?

`Can't overcome that with anything but more range in more hands.
Click to expand...

Or with MK19s, M2 .50 Cals and M240Bs. Which are like American Express, no one leaves home without them.
 
That's what I don't get....these discussions always act like all we have are little ol' m4's when even support troop are armed with m2's 203's ect. I'm out of the loop,but is it safe to assume the m60 jammomatic is still in use or a replacement thereof?
 
New to the site, new to military rifles, not new to gunning

10 years, medically retired LEO, owned guns my entire life, since my grandfather gave me a Remington 572 Fieldmaster, for my 9th birthday, after completing the NRA Junior Rifleman course and Hunter Safety course, in 1969.
Most of my military rifle knowledge, ranges WWII, and prior. I own a Mini-14, a G.I. M1 Carbine, a G.I. M-14, a G.I. M1 Garand, an Eddystone, and a 1903, several good German and Swiss bolts, plus a bunch of sporting bolt rifles. So, I am no expert, on modern military rifle needs, and do not put myself out there as being one. But, I do have some thoughts.
What is so wrong with the 7.62 NATO round, as a primary weapon? Hell, I shoot 200+ rounds, in a day, of .30-06, from my Garand, and it's a pleasure to shoot that rifle, from the first, to the last, round. If I can do that, with an '06, why can't our guys carry a lightened version of an M-14? Something like an AR-10, or just something with a quality gas operated system, like the Garand had, but with an AR style stock, and recoil buffer? Look, I understand the disadvantages of carrying a large, heavy, wooden stock rifle, and I realize that reducing weight, increases recoil. But, with modern designs, I don't see why American manufacturers can't design a controllable, lightweight, 7.62 NATO. Hell, I shot a Barrett M82A1, last year, and didn't feel anywhere near the recoil that I thought I would.
I don't know much, but, I do know I'd like to see the guys protecting me, and my family, against our enemies, have some substantial firepower, immediately at their disposal. Personally, I'd give 'em all a SAW, if they'd take it.
My personal choice, would be a redesigned Garand, with a 15-20 round detachable box magazine, and a lightweight stock, with the modern accoutrements. But, I think most folks would disagree with me, on the .30-06 caliber.
 
I don't see why American manufacturers can't design a controllable, lightweight, 7.62 NATO.
Click to expand...
Dan, I don't think it is the weight of the weapon that is in question as much as the weight of a standard combat ration of ammunition. I don't have any .308 handy but I have some 100 grain .243 loads and they weigh almost double that of a 5.56x45 round. That means either twice the weight for the average grunt to have to hump or half the ammo.
 
Last edited:
10 years, medically retired LEO, owned guns my entire life, since my grandfather gave me a Remington 572 Fieldmaster, for my 9th birthday, after completing the NRA Junior Rifleman course and Hunter Safety course, in 1969.
Most of my military rifle knowledge, ranges WWII, and prior. I own a Mini-14, a G.I. M1 Carbine, a G.I. M-14, a G.I. M1 Garand, an Eddystone, and a 1903, several good German and Swiss bolts, plus a bunch of sporting bolt rifles. So, I am no expert, on modern military rifle needs, and do not put myself out there as being one. But, I do have some thoughts.
What is so wrong with the 7.62 NATO round, as a primary weapon? Hell, I shoot 200+ rounds, in a day, of .30-06, from my Garand, and it's a pleasure to shoot that rifle, from the first, to the last, round. If I can do that, with an '06, why can't our guys carry a lightened version of an M-14? Something like an AR-10, or just something with a quality gas operated system, like the Garand had, but with an AR style stock, and recoil buffer? Look, I understand the disadvantages of carrying a large, heavy, wooden stock rifle, and I realize that reducing weight, increases recoil. But, with modern designs, I don't see why American manufacturers can't design a controllable, lightweight, 7.62 NATO. Hell, I shot a Barrett M82A1, last year, and didn't feel anywhere near the recoil that I thought I would.
I don't know much, but, I do know I'd like to see the guys protecting me, and my family, against our enemies, have some substantial firepower, immediately at their disposal. Personally, I'd give 'em all a SAW, if they'd take it.
My personal choice, would be a redesigned Garand, with a 15-20 round detachable box magazine, and a lightweight stock, with the modern accoutrements. But, I think most folks would disagree with me, on the .30-06 caliber.
Click to expand...

My take from reading anecdotes from people who are using them in combat today.

1. The M14 sucks, no one that actually has to use one in combat really likes it unless they are "POGS" posing at an FOB. Other than a very small number of very dedicated users. The is due to the antiquated design, poor ergonomics, and lack of replacement parts/knowledge to work on them. They are just as, if not more, maintenance intensive than the AR series but are harder to work on and keep running. When compared to the M16FOW.

2. The .308 is better at shooting at 600 yards than a .223 but, no combat arms units just stand back at 600 yards and duels with enemies. They close and eliminate using CAS, Artillery, beltfeds, not just small arms.

3. The .308 still requires the same number of hits as the .223 does to "stop someone", but now you can't carry as much ammo, the gun is heavier and it kicks more. It didn't turn out to be the "Hammer of Thor"at everyone seemed to think it would.

4. The best, most recent .308 out there right now (in US inventory anyway), the MK 17 (SCAR H), is chewing up optics and spitting them out and the advantage of longer range isn't beneficial when your zero is wandering around. (There are other rumors as well, but they aren't being discussed publicly, only hinted at.)

The British actually have the LMT MWS out there right now and it seems to be well liked but there isn't as much information about British MOD equipment as there is about US DOD.

Now I know what is going to come up. Everyone that has read Boston T Party's "Bible" is going to want to argue with me/flame me about the incredible "knockdown" power of the .308 and the Uber superiority M1 Garand/M14 family. I am not going to argue with you, all the info is available on the forum that I posted if you are willing to go and research it.

If not, you can believe whatever you want.:D

PS. Nobody likes the SAW either. Too heavy and they are so worn out they have to fight with them constantly.:D There was a really good thread about the utilization of the SAW and/vs the new IAR. Very interesting and informative to nerds like me.

PPS. The Garand is not the be all and end all of rifles. In WWII it was something special, no one else had a general issue semiautomatic. But it wasn't the perfect fighting implement that some portray it to be. If you do your research, it had some pretty bad warts too in combat usage but when the alternative was a 5 round bolt action, it was pretty sweet.

Let the flaming begin.:rolleyes:
 
Okay, I get that, BUT.....

.....How many rounds does the average guy waste, attempting to penetrate some object easily penetrated by a 7.62 NATO?
Personally, I' like General Patton's theory on the Garand, that it is very effective, when one takes the time to aim and shoot, rather than spray and hope. Then again, I'd likely be more prone to being the sniper, with the M82A1. but, I am a 19th century kind of guy, with a bit of interest in some 20th and 21st century weapons.
Heck, other than my Mini 14, and some modern polymer handguns, most of the contents of my safe are guns, and munitions, based on early 1900 designs. I guess I'm a bit mired. So, I don't slam the modern way of thinking, nor modern weapons (I LOVE my .357 Sig XD), I just have reverence for those which were of early genius design.
 
Last edited:
Or with MK19s, M2 .50 Cals and M240Bs. Which are like American Express, no one leaves home without them.
Click to expand...

That's what I don't get....these discussions always act like all we have are little ol' m4's when even support troop are armed with m2's 203's ect. I'm out of the loop,but is it safe to assume the m60 jammomatic is still in use or a replacement thereof?
Click to expand...
`Been in country on the ground/in the high altitude mountains of Afghanistan lately?

You hump everything.

~~~~~~~~~~

As an aside I own (and shoot) every every version of every issue military weapon since the
`61 Springfield -- Sharps, Smiths, Burnsides, trapdoors, Krags, `03's, Garands, M1A's -- and the AR.

Without any question at all the AR/Stoner design is THE marvel of flexible design combining
light weight, controlled recoil, simple field maintenance, modularity, RELIABILITY, accuracy
and bar-cleaning capacity. But it needs battle-range help in the cartridge/projo arena that
is a relatively simple fix nowadays -- and no amount of training is going to overcome that gap.
Newtonian physics is Newtonian physics.

YoungSon has stated that in four visits to the sandbox in an maneuver infantry role his M4 has
never let him down. But he also wryly noted that the Taliban has found its vulnerability, exploits it,
and buys themselves 10-20 of minutes of maneuver time of their own until heavier weapons can
be brought up -- or aircraft can be brought down.

(And we've had less & less access to that heavy ordnance as this war has progressed.
Kinder, gentler ROE don'cha know.)
 
Last edited:
.....How many rounds does the average guy waste, attempting to penetrate some object easily penetrated by a 7.62 NATO?
Personally, I' like General Patton's theory on the Garand, that it is very effective, when one takes the time to aim and shoot, rather than spray and hope. Then again, I'd likely be more prone to being the sniper, with the M82A1.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I have never, nor ever plan to be in combat. But penetration of cover never comes up much in those discussions.

I theorize that it has to do with the mediums being discussed. Sandbags, dirt, rocks won't be penetrated enough to do any real damage with either round. The things that it will penetrate better, people probably move even when taking incoming from just .223.

Also recent developments in ammo technology have resulted in the advent of "barrier blind" ammo like the Mk318 and others have increased the penetration ability of the 5.56 rounds. I don't really know by how much but I got the understanding that window glass was one of the more important barriers and these were very effective at that.

In a lot of cases, I figure when Haji takes cover behind something that is impenetrable to .223, they use something else. Like 40mm grenades or hand grenades, AT-4 or call in CAS or Artillery or something else while the .223 is used to keep them pinned in position.

But I'll let someone who actually does that for a living/or has answer that for certain.

All I know is that penetration of hard cover only comes up with discussing the merits of the SAW vs the 240, I have never seen it discussed on non-crew served weapons much other than in stopping cars.

that it is very effective, when one takes the time to aim and shoot
Click to expand...

From what I understand, so is the M16FOW, even with the much maligned M855.;)
 
If you watch a few videos and documentaries of soldiers in Afghanistan you can easily see why 223/5.56 is good enough.

Their current strategy's are to suppress the enemy to keep them from moving, and then hit them with artillery or air strikes.

With he amount of ammo they pour on to their targets with no real intention of killing them, but just keep their heads down you want the smallest lightest cheapest bullet available, anything more is just more weight and more cost.

They do how ever generally have Designated Marksmen who are armed with more accurate higher powered weapons, as they are trained to be accurate not just suppress.
 
Just a couple things. Long distance combat when we originally invaded Afghanistan was a problem. Air support was rare and artillery nonexistent. The problem was the short barreled M4 carbine rather than the 5.56mm cartridge.
The military decided to solve that problem with the designated rifleman. A trooper armed with the longer barreled M16 rifle or in some cases a rebuilt M14.
BTW most kills at that time, with an infantry weapon, were with mortars.

It's true that the 5.56mm is unable to penetrate the heavy mud walls in some structures in Iran and Afghanistan. Neither can the 7.62mm.
Even the M2 .50bmg has difficulty knocking those walls down.

Whether you agree with them or not, the tactics used by US infantry frequently involve heavy support fire followed by close assault. The M4 is better suited to those tactics than a longer gun firing a heavier round.
 
As I post this, I see on the upper right corner that the thread title is 'Ideal Assault Rifle Cartridge'.

I have never been to Afghanistan, and I will never claim to have been. It is my understanding that the range of engagements is well beyond what most infantrymen are trained (and equipped) for.

However, the thread is not titled 'The Ideal Assault Rifle Cartridge For One Specific Theater Of Operation'.

I don't make that statement to detract from the brave guys out there slugging it out with the Taliban. I state that because there are more theaters of operation than Afghanistan. The 5.56 worked in Iraq, maybe not perfectly, but name me one piece of military equipment that works perfectly every time.

I'm not a huge 5.56 fan, I just think that the emphasis should be more on how the equipment is used (TRAINING!!!!!!) than exactly WHAT is being used. What works best in the mountains might be total garbage for an urban theater, and vice versa. The key is to maximize proficiency with the equipment you do have, as opposed to playing the wishing game for the 'right' ammo/rifle/etc.
 
Take a look at Vietnam - when the conflict first started the main tool was the M14 firing the ever so lovely 7.62x51. Fast forward a little and during that very same war the 5.56 was being used. New rifle = new round, they wanted to be able to carry more rounds and cut down the amount of weight the troop was burdened by (among other reasons). The bigger the bullet = the more weight = less mobility. Shot placement is everything, the 6.5, 6.8, and so forth have nothing rock solid to replace the 5.56. The M16 platform has been copied and renewed over and over again WITH the same round for a reason. Whoever tells you that the 5.56 is not the bullet for the job when conflict erupts knows nothing of combat.
 
Hopefully soon we will go 20 years or more between significant engagements and soldiers will enlist and retire without firing a shot in anger. And all will be ideal again.
 
This mental exercise was already thought of and a solution created. Either 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel meet the OP's requirements.
 
Whoever tells you that the 5.56 is not the bullet for the job when conflict erupts knows nothing of combat.
Click to expand...
`Scuse me?

If Youngson's (now deploying on #5) experience from 2006 until now doesn't qualify, I guess we're all in trouble, Particularly as he was FIST team leader for the Rangers on the last three, and knows what it means/is involved in getting heavy weapons, art'y, air, and unit maneuver going when incoming is all around you.

(This string is beginning to remind me of the pre-WW1 French military school of thought that new-fangled machine guns could be overcome as long as the men had esprit and audacity.) :(



~~~~~~~~
As to combat, YounSon has has his wars
His father and Uncles had theirs.
Times change.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top