Ideal Assault rifle cartridge.

Status
Not open for further replies.
we're not talking the comparison between 7.622NATO and 5.56.

Read the post immediately above for the restrictions on changes.
Click to expand...

It's hard to figure out what you're talking about. First it was the 5.56 VS the 7.62X39, then the M14 as used in basic, now I'm assuming you're talking about the M118/M118LR.

That ammo is used in Sniper Rifles, a different playing field. The subject topic the way I understood it is "Ideal Assault Rifle Cartridge.

If you want to talk sniper rifles I can go there too, I have a bit of experience in that field, but that discussion should be in a new topic.

Just to add, I know what the M14 will do, I went through basic and AIT using one and used it in the 82nd before going to SE Asia.

I've shot the M14 in completion since 1977 getting my distinguished badge with it. I went to sniper school and taught sniper schools with the M21.

As to ranging, yes you have fancy electronics but don't believe you can't range with out range finders and mil dots.

I taught ranging using the Front sight, or cross hairs, its every bit as accurate at Mil Dots without the batteries required for Laser Range finders.

It's fairly simple; Divide the width of the front sight into the width of the target, that will give you the range where the front sight fills the target.

An example the width of the average M14/M1 sight is .076, the width of the E- target is 19 inches (size of the average soldier shoulder to shoulder). 19/.076 is 250 yards. If the front sight is the same width as the target you are 250 yards away, if the front sight it twice the size of the target you are 500 yards, etc etc. It's just as accurate as Mil Dots after a bit of practice. Both require one know the size of the target.
 
Actually, it's pretty easy to figure out what I'm talking about.
Just read the above several posts 136 & 139

If that isn't clear enough advantage, for only a cartridge change
in an existing small arms platform, well.....
 
Until you figure the cost in refitting millions of M4/M16 at a time when the Defense budget is being cut drastically.

There may be an advantage of a given round, but not enough to justify the cost when what we have works as well as it does.

There is a lot more involved then just changing a bullet because we like a given bullet more that another.
 
Until you figure the cost in refitting millions of M4/M16 at a time when the Defense budget is being cut drastically
Click to expand...
I wondered when that argument would come up.

As noted above: "Only... the Ops Analyst would take the tact that cartridge change
"...wouldn't have been worth the money."

So why do I hear the faint echo of James Wolfe Ripley (Class of`14) laughing quietly
from his grave?
 
Last edited:
Me/Mike I:
"I know that the Japanese abandoned it in favor of 7.7x58 to help with--drum roll please--shooting through mud walls in Manchuria."

Uhm.... no.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. No, not for shooting through mud walls in China, but to improve the terminal ballistics. The thought first came up after the Russo-Japanese war many years before Manchuria (Source:The Japanese Type 99 Arisaka Rifle, 2010, Don Voigt). I don't think that anyone actually makes a decision to change cartridges based on ballistics tests against walls. I wrote that thought poorly and deserved to be called out.

Different topic: 1000 yard sights.
1000 yard sights make perfect sense to me. I think that the 1000 yard shooting had less to do with hitting targets and more to do with hitting horses. I hope I'm not just repeating common knowledge, but the horse was the largest, most mobile military machine of the day back in 1906 (thinking of our 30-06). Also, machine guns were a still unknown quantity whose value wouldn't be proven beyond all doubt until WW1. I could imagine that the "manual" said that if you lined up a company of riflemen and started lobbing lead toward a cavalry charge when it's still 1000 yards out and you could deter the use of that tactic. I could be wrong, but that's the logic of my very amateur historical analysis.

I still like 6.5x50. If you do get a chance to play with the 6.5, Mike, I'd hope you'd post your results here.
 
Take the 7.62x39, straighten the case walls a tad and move the shoulder forward a bit. You now have the 7.62x39 Imp and with today's propellants it should easily scoot a 123 boattail to around 2600 fps.
 
Have any of you read the pig board?

The ideal caliber is the .270... Or 6.8. It apparently kills corpses and live pigs the best. The gov't has known this since 1906.

The 5.56 is a varmint cartridge. Thats what it was designed to be. Y'all might want to look up the history of the 5.56, 7.62x54 and why we're using what we're using in combat now.

Its not because its the best. Mostly its because the people who make the decisions look have a loose grip on reality and are buddies/paid by whomever's product we're using.

Of course that last sentence is going to be thrown out due to the heresy of conspiracy theory... But one last thing to think on...

Remember dragon skin body armor? Who tested that for the military's evals? Oh yeah...the guy who works for the company who the military CURRENTLY (and at the time of testing) had a contract with for body armor. Now is that guy going to say "gee willikers, that armor IS better than ours, guess we'll just let you cancel this extremely profitable contact and use them instead". Guess a conflict of interest really isn't.
 
Opinions opinions

Everybody has got one. I'v been reading the posts and have to say Although I didn't expect so many replies I think we are going round in circles.

1. I think I am a pacifist, I don't think we should roll over for our enemies, but I have never done war and I know I wouldn't like it.
2. I feel it is our duty as citizens to provide our armed forces with the best gear we can design. On that subject the 9mm paraballem was captured in great quantities by the Brits before they designed thr Sten gun round it. We i.e. the west could have done the same with the AK47 round.
3. Our countries should be strong so that other countries would prefer to be our friends rather than our enemies. Once Gengis Kahn got started nobody wanted to make war on him.
One sword is designed to stab, another to cut, we need to decide what is required then design and produce it.
If I had to choose from what's available "The 6.8SPC."
mik
 
I think maybe something that is throwing people off the mark here is the term "assault rifle." If we just say "basic infantry rifle," then you might have a better idea of what we're talking about. So then, what is the ideal basic infantry rifle cartridge.

There are obviously a lot of people who still at the 1903 stage. Maybe it would be a good idea to have magazine cuttoffs so less ammunition is wasted and they wouldn't have to carry so much.

Oh, you don't think that's such a good idea, huh? Well, maybe not. So, tell me why both the Soviets and the Germans in WWII migrated to lesser cartridges for their infantry? Were their experiences irrelevant today, over 65 years later? Was their infantry of substandard quality?

Or to put a different spin on the question, are all of our infantry today above average? Or more specifically, above average shots?
 
I agree with you generally on the terminology Blue Train... 'Main Battle Rifle' cartridge is exactly the lines I was thinking along. As to the marksmanship skills of the current US soldier... I busted my hump 'pre-training' five of them, so I can vouch for those ;)

In reality I think these kids are probably shooting well enough, for what they're doing. I am real pleased that trigger finger discipline is evident in news photos, etc..
 
Have any of you read the pig board?

The ideal caliber is the .270... Or 6.8. It apparently kills corpses and live pigs the best. The gov't has known this since 1906.
Click to expand...

Which pig board was that?
Did it have a sneak sample of the then still developmental 1907 6.8 Chinese Mauser? (The .270 WCF was still 17 years away.)

The one I cited was much later and compared the .276 Pedersen to the .30-06 with a .256 Pedersen variant thrown in. Kind of like the Thompson Lagarde Committee, they had their minds made up and read the results to confirm their preference. But the MD said the .256 was more destructive.

I recall a story, probably apocryphal, that one of the top brass on the SPC board shot a .270 WCF and decreed that caliber would be used with appropriate AR cartridge in preference to the various 6, 6.35, 6.5 and 7mms available.
 
something that is throwing people off the mark here is the term "assault rifle." If we just say
"basic infantry rifle," then you might have a better idea of what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

The M4/16 is considered both, and serves both roles in the American army just as the AK variants
serve the same role in former Soviet Union countries.

And you have just pinpointed why the specific ammunition choice plays such a pivotal role:

It must weight little, be little, have little recoil, reach far, ...and be able to kill people who
are trying to kill you at all infantry ranges.
 
Funny how they both adopted lightweight high velocity projectiles for the basic weapon. And they both have other specialty weapons to augment with.

Russia could have never defeated the US they chose not to have NCO's.
 
It must weight little, be little, have little recoil, reach far, ...and be able to kill people who
are trying to kill you at all infantry ranges.
Click to expand...

Couple questions...
1. What is your definition of all infantry ranges?
Not everybody can reach the range of snipers and to fill the gap in ranges we have DMs. Are you saying having everybody be qualified DM?

2. For arguements sake lets say you get a weapon system in a larger caliber that weighs as much as a standard M4, how much more would each full magazine of 30 rounds weigh compared to a mag of 5.56 (1lbs)? Remember, ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain.


Edit: the goal is not to kill as many people (even enemy) as possible, the goal is to stop the enemy's will to fight. If you hit a target, his "friends" could do two things; leave him or take him out of battle. If the man is dead they will most likely leave the body if they can't take it out safely. If he is injured and they leave him we could have a prisoner, if they take him it will take another 1 or 2 guys to move him. You just took 3 guys out of the battle. Now I'm not saying you should shoot to injure, always go for the kill shot. But an injured enemy can be just as effective as killing one to end an engagement. To say that you need a round that will kill at all ranges shows that you are neglecting shot placement. Has every soldier shot with every 7.62 died because its bigger? Ummm no.

I think the solution for fighting in Afghan would be to have more DMs integrated into a squad, not change the caliber of every battle rifle because a miss of any caliber is ineffective. TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING. That is the other answer to engaging at long distances.
 
Last edited:
the goal is not to kill as many people (even enemy) as possible,
Click to expand...
The mission of the infantry is to close with the enemy and kill him.
Anything else is collateral.

lets say you get a weapon system in a larger caliber that weighs as much as a standard M4, how much more would each full magazine of 30 rounds weigh compared to a mag of 5.56
Click to expand...

As noted before, the goal is only the difference in bullet weight. Since I'm unabashed pushing the
Grendel, the difference between a 30-Rnd magazine of the 123gr Grendel and that of the 63gr 5.56
is roughly four ounces.

What is your definition of all infantry ranges?
Click to expand...
Since I can engage ½-man/silhouette-sized targets at 200-250 yards all day long with only an
aperture sighted M1A, I want the 4x-magnified/4-mil dot/ACOG-equipped M4/16 to be
point-blank (±8") battle-zeroed for 400 yards, and able to handle mil-dot/compensation
out to 650yrds by 2nd shot. (3rd shot by absolute sure)

And I want the bullet to be able to kill at that range.

A reminder -- I'm not in the business of wounding. Wounding is for the Ops Analysts,
not infantrymen in close combat.


'

postscript: I haven't forgotten the need for truly close-quarters combat (across the room, across the street, or down the block -- to include highly-controllable recoil. Hence the need to keep the intermediate cartridge size.
 
Last edited:
Remember dragon skin body armor? Who tested that for the military's evals? Oh yeah...the guy who works for the company who the military CURRENTLY (and at the time of testing) had a contract with for body armor. Now is that guy going to say "gee willikers, that armor IS better than ours, guess we'll just let you cancel this extremely profitable contact and use them instead". Guess a conflict of interest really isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes I remember Dragon Skin armor... The problem was it weighted just as much as the current armor. Its only real advantige was that it was more flexable.
And there where problems... Like how it cost an arm and a leg and how the resin they used to bind the "scales" together would lose its adhesion in 100+ degree weather. (a real problem givin our current military theaters).
 
I'm glad someone recognized that the object of infantry is to close with and destroy the enemy (by means of fire and maneuver, if I remember the right expression). They make maximum use of support weapons from the machine gun on up. But no battle will be won by trading shots at 400 meters on out. There will be casualties but no decision.

On that point, I sometimes suspect the army of being too casualty conscious. That means they avoid doing things that are risky, like parachute jumping to cut off a retreating enemy, and end up doing nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top