Optimum Military Rifle Calibur -- Part Deux

Well Jim, right now the military still uses brass(or steel).

We can't know what to dictate unless we discuss it and figure out what is good.

There are also a fair amount of military guys here, some may have the ability to affect some changes, or at least present this thread to someone who can.

It is our country, and it is our military. We should be able to help in the process of figuring out how to make our troops able to survive war and kill the enemy.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim Keenan:
Assuming "we" had the power, how in heck could "we" dictate to the military when "we" (on this forum) can't even agree on what "we" think.

Further some of "us" admit that they know next to nothing about the subject. No one seems to consider small details like production, cost of change, weight and size of ammunition, functioning, lethality, penetration of light armor, etc., etc.

Further, "we" are engaged in very conventional thinking (brass cases and bullets) when DARPA and others are way beyond that stuff. We are almost into the X generation of military weapons; they are working on Y and Z and who knows what else. Phasers, anyone? Yes, I am serious; something very like that is in the mill, the current (pun intended) problem is an energy source.
Jim[/quote]

Jim, I'll cover your post point by point:

I think there is a general consensus that the the .223 is to small and .308 is too big. Nothing is absolute. It's the arbitrary decisions of politicians that brings us to guns like the M-16 and M-14.
Production was discussed. We are buying new M-16's and M-4's anyhow. It's not the production costs that should concern us. For the price of one B-2 we can reequip the entire US Military including spares, logistical, and training facilities. Give me a break about production costs. Penetration - discussed. Reliability - discussed. lethality - discussed. If you think we are missing something, please chime in with your opinion.

As for Advancements in weaponry... Which advancements? Phasers? We are just now getting laser weapons that will mount in semi-trucks to shoot down artillery rockets -- arguably very SOFT targets. Brass cases? We already discussed aluminum and steel. Plastic cases? What do you want? Brass has a proven track record for accuracy. Penetration? We talked about that too in terms of SS-109 and steel core bullets. Other AP considerations have been discussed in recent threads.
The recent ACR trials by the US Military illustrate the problems with your thinking. There were plastic cases, duplex bullets, flechettes, ringfire rising chamber guns, caseless ammo, 2000rpm ratest of fire, etc. Throughout the tests, the Army used the M-16 as a control weapon. There was no significant difference between the weapons and the control weopon to warrent a change. Having said that it is clear that the M-16 will probably trudge along for a generation or two longer. None of the posters are denying this, we are merely engaging in an intelectual discourse which I personally find fascinating. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE. I'm fascinated by new and unique prespectives.
 
Been following this thread, very interesting stuff from folks who know lots more than I do.

Maybe I don't have a clue, but what about something like a Whisper cartridge? Perhaps a little bigger than the .300 whisper but along those same lines?

The standard load would be full power, and subsonics could be availible for use with suppresors. On a gun with an adjustable gas regulator (like the FAL) they could both work. Maybe too specialized?

Seems like it would have more downrange energy than the .223, but less than a .308, I think it could work well.
 
Dangus-
The problem is many in the military view those on the outside giving suggestions as mere arm chair commandos. I sure there are various piece of ordnance that can be damn effective, but how do they fit in the big picture? I rifle has a little part of the "big picture." Does the miracle caliber fit into the how we fight as a military in general? Since the biggest killing weapons in the grunts inventory is their mortars and machine-guns, and those account for very little actual killing. The majority of equipment that does most of the killing is not part of the infantrymens' bag of tricks, but are those supporting arms that they can contact on the radio. Than cost does become a big issue, although compared to items like the B2 or the Seawolf subs, a rifle is cheap. You would be surprised at the political wrangling that goes into weapons selection, just remember back to the M9. Than you look at those officers that actually make many of the decisions are far removed from us lowly company grade officers and the enlisted. They often look back to the "in my day we used this weapon and it worked fine back then, so why do you need something else."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Correia:
Maybe I don't have a clue, but what about something like a Whisper cartridge? Perhaps a little bigger than the .300 whisper but along those same lines?
Seems like it would have more downrange energy than the .223, but less than a .308, I think it could work well.[/quote]

Suppressors have very little utility in battle. The 300 whisper is a specialized round that, while effective, is very limited. Energy is not as important as terminal effect. The bullet needs to penetrate also. The 300 Whisper can be duplicated to some degree by using the 7.62x39 and loading it up with a very heavy, deep seated bullet. For those few situations requiring a suppressor and 200+ yard shooting... heck, I can't think of one.
 
I would think the problem with 300 Whisper and like cartridges is that they haven't the velocity to tumble nor damage by shock effect, and militaries still stick to FMJ by convention.

badger, you uncovered some subconscious assumptions of mine. I was assuming a metal box mag; I didn't even think of plastic, even though I own several. I can't stand the "rock-to-lock" design (I have enough dexterity problems withouttrying to keep the front nub hooked on) but obviously there are folks who must like it.

The big problem with energy weapons, whether laser, EM rail, microwave, or whatever is the size and weight of the power source required. Even the latest batteries weigh too much per kWh stored. So we will be using direct chemical/mechanical conversion for awhile. There is the issue of liquid or gaseous propellants, but I don't see any radical improvements to field effectiveness there. I maintain that the two biggest problems are sighting and ergonomics. Terminal performance is maybe 3rd, but is not a crisis. The conventional technology we have works fine if the shooter puts rounds on target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top