What Would the Army’s Dream Rifle Mean for Tactics?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
The Army is currently pursuing a unicorn rifle that will launch a 125gr 6.8mm bullet at 3,500fps from a 16” barrel. The rifle that launches it will cost $10k per unit but have a sight similar to something like the TrackingPoint system. Basic load will be reduced to about 180 rounds for the same amount of weight as the current load.

The distribution will be limited to key combat forces due to cost.

Question for TFL members: How do current tactics have to be adjusted to benefit this weapon system?
 
I think the tactics that are in standard use right now by the Armed Forces would be adequate for use with this new round, assuming that the weapons that fire this round will still be of the AR platform. The rifles would essentially be the same and carbines for CQC and urban environments. Even if the military decides to change up the entire battle rifle system and use something like bullpups, the tactics wouldn't change too much. Current combat systems and procedures are perfectly fitted for use with any current-day battle rifle in use throughout the world. Now if someone decides to have all rank and file equipped with M14s or Garand/FAL variants, there will have to be changes. Imagine how door-to-door raids in Fallujah would have to be conducted if every ground-pounder was carrying an M-14 with a full standard battle load of 7.62. A lot more space would be needed by everyone.

I can assume that they are adopting this round as being more heavier than the 5.56, thus with greater penetration and stopping power, without having to bring back the 7.62 for all rank and file like the good ol' days. I don't really see any problem with the 5.56 that is being used now. Nobody is really denying the fact that a properly manufactured 5.56 is a very good penetrator and fight stopper. If they adopt the new round they are going to have to rechamber and remanufacture all guns to chamber it. Should we start expecting more $$$ to be taken out of our paychecks?:confused:
 
If they are using EXACTO like rounds, tactics need to account for a higher first shot hit. Fewer rounds would be carried but they would be $$$ each.

Trackingpoint is a different targeting system (it IS NOT a guidance system).
Requires specific wind input for a precision hit.
But they might just go with the Suppressive mode that constantly calculates the target solution.
Additionally, tactics must take into account the TP batteries only last a few hours.
 
Well, they will have to do away with the notion of fire superiority if they are using a trackingpoint type aiming system that will not allow them to fire until they have a designated target and are again on target in order to fire.

If they continue to engage in fire superiority, carrying less ammo will mean the necessity for for CAS, mortar, or artillery help when troops run out of ammo 10% faster because they are carrying 10% less or so.

The problem with TP type sighting systems is that they require being able to see the enemy in order to be effective. One of the frequently encountered problems of Allied combatants in Afghanistan, for example, is dealing with asymmetrical tactics by the opposition, often employing guerilla type tactics. Time and time again in battles, you have soldiers engaged in shooting in a general direction at a general target area because they don't know very well where the fire is actually coming from.

There will be battles where such optics will be helpful, no doubt, but a lot where they will not be helpful.

In other words, it sounds like they will need a lot of support from other platforms in order to field this new rifle.
 
Point#1
10 grand for a military rifle? seriously???

Point #2

125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?

HOW???
 
125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?
Click to expand...

Could possibly be done if one uses a powder blend with high compression-combustion curve. That would mean chamber pressures that potentially exceed SAAMI specs, by a large margin. I am sure wildcatters and folks that play around with the 6mm target and varmint loads have worked with these pressures and velocities before.

Not something that the military is interested in though. They want tools that can be picked up and put to use at once. Soldiers are soldiers. Not reloaders or bench-shooters who bring their entire kit onto the field and jot down all those readings/calculations/equations onto their logbooks.

I am interested to see where this is going to go with the Army. Are they going to cough up big $$$ to completely swap out a system that already works?
 
44AMP said:
125gr bullet at 3,500fps from a 16" barrel?

HOW???
Click to expand...

No doubt using the same technological innovation that brought us SPIW, ACR, XM25, and XM-8. ;)

Did I also mention the threshhold for barrel longevity was no more than a 10% degradation in accuracy after 10,000 rounds?

Putting aside the technological constraints, if they COULD manufacture such a rifle, a lot of our current small arms infantry tactics would have to change dramatically. Not the least of which is a system like this pretty much demands some advanced never before seen optics that overcome traditional human limitations in extended range engagements.

And with a noticeably smaller basic load and heavier ammo, fire discipline will play a much more important role.

Last but not least, room clearing in urban areas is going to be exciting with a round designed to penetrate any currently existing body armor at a distance of 600m. You pretty much have to throw the CQB book out entirely and start from scratch, or reduce your ammo load out even further with a reduced penetration ammo carried alongside your issue ammo.
 
Could possibly be done if one uses a powder blend with high compression-combustion curve. That would mean chamber pressures that potentially exceed SAAMI specs, by a large margin.
Click to expand...

Can't really exceed SAAMI specs for a cartridge that hasn't been developed yet. There are no SAAMI specs for it.
 
ok,
125gr bullet
3,500fps
16" barrel
no more then 10% loss of accuracy after 10,000 rounds

and all this for ONLY $10,000 a unit?

what. no spec that the total package weapon, sight and ammo has to be under 3kg??

:rolleyes:

Don't want much, do they.

The really scary part is that, since I'm pretty sure they still drug test these people, that means someone who wasn't stoned came up with these requirements...

wow...


and, forgive my fossil brain, but what does ACR mean if not Armored Cavalry Regiment? :D
 
but what does ACR mean
Click to expand...

Either Advanced Combat Rifle or Automatic Combat Rifle.

Can't really exceed SAAMI specs for a cartridge that hasn't been developed yet. There are no SAAMI specs for it.
Click to expand...

Ah okay. I thought they were toying around with a preexisting cartridge and doing some necking down or resizing. Now I am even a bit more worried about next year's tax rates.:o

As in the past, most will be killed by artillery, mines and air strikes in a major near-peer war.
Click to expand...

If ya' really want to win the war, gotta get boots on the ground. China learned that pretty hard during the 1978-1981 Vietnam border war. PLA first strategy was to expel the Viet incursions that were already on Chinese territory (Guangxi and Guangdong) and leave it at that, but the Viets continued the harassment and shelling until Phase 2 had to be adopted and expeditionary forces, with a boar snout made up of tanks, was sent thundering deep into Vietnam. The intention was not to permanently occupy but send a clear message to the Viet government that the PLA is now holding your entire border region and is advancing towards your capital. So better think fast.

Arty and air force's job is to clear the way and turn enemy resistance into pavement. Their goal is to make life easier for the grunts who do the final planting of the flag.
 
And most of the casualties of the grunts will be caused by artillery, mines and air support.

If we fight China (god forbid), the round in the grunt rifle will be trivial as if we engage in serious infantry combat anywhere they can deploy major infantry forces, the losses will be horrendous. The same will happen for the sea battles.

The whole debate is silly, IMHO. We go through this every few years and our problems are not the rifle round when it comes to equipment issues.
 
and our problems are not the rifle round when it comes to equipment issues.
Click to expand...

From our viewpoint, that is true. But it seems to be in the nature of governments to be hard-headed, narrow-minded, and sometimes quite wasteful and resistant to hearing of other folks' inputs. The main topic of this discussion would be why would the military make such a drastic change in it's equipment roster when everything that is being used currently is pretty much working.

The new generations of M-16s/M-4s are not jamming or fouling like they were doing in 'Nam. Nobody is complaining that the 5.56 is wimpy or underpowered. And we are certainly not experiencing another dramatic revolution in small arms tech that it is necessary to adapt as fast as possible. (The last one was the development of smokeless powder. Entire factories and their tooling had to be changed in order to start making the new nitro-proofed actions, barrels and cartridges.)


Oh and BTW, fights between superpowers are not good for anyone. Not good at all. If it ever really gets that bad, they better resolve it with something like that was portrayed in Robot Jox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_Jox). ;) Otherwise the roaches and crustaceans may become the new masters of the world.
 
Last edited:
why would the military make such a drastic change in it's equipment roster when everything that is being used currently is pretty much working.
Click to expand...

This is brought up every time the military looks at changing its materiel. We don't need those new fangled repeaters, all they'll do is let the troops waste ammo...etc.....

Until the other side makes a change, that proves to be some level of improvement, at which point we play catch up, and try to start the research that will eventually let us get ahead, again. Tis why they call it an arms race.

Nobody is complaining that the 5.56 is wimpy or underpowered.
Click to expand...

Actually, it seems that more than a few people are complaining, and combat vets, at that. They just aren't being listened to, much, and its not the dramatic center stage issue it was during Viet Nam.

More than a few will tell you how they routinely had to shoot insurgents two, three or more times before they were stopped. But this is often dismissed as A) just poor shooting, or more often B) the "video game effect". Modern youth, "trained" on video games expects the bad guy to go down from one hit. Every time. That's the way the game works. SO, when this doesn't happen in the real world, they think stopping power is lacking.

pretty sure there is some truth on both sides. We know (through testing) that one kind of 5.56mm ammo, when fired from the short barrel carbines, loses the velocity needed for full performance beyond 200yds or so.

I think its really rather pointless to discuss potential tactical changes that would be brought about by the "dream rifle" until we know what that dream rifle and its round actually DO in the real world.
 
44 AMP said:
...
I think its really rather pointless to discuss potential tactical changes that would be brought about by the "dream rifle" until we know what that dream rifle and its round actually DO in the real world.
Click to expand...

We’ve seen it in movies, and in larger naval weapons.
Phasers and Railguns.
Higher power densities and more precision equipment = deader targets at longer ranges in fewer shots.
Just compare the 5.56 or .308 capabilities of today with those of 100 years ago.
 
100 years ago - 30.06s and 303s were the Allied rounds for the most part.

It's true that every advance might be seen as bad by the powers that be. However, you need a rationale for a change. You might not know that in the 1900's there was a tremendous debate of whether battleships should become all torpedo with only minor guns. It was debate about naval tech.

The move to have tons of AA missiles on destroyer, frigate classes in our times made them unable fight any seaborne opponent. That is being worked on.

The question is whether this expense is going to generate a workable solution to a real problem. There were lots of airplane prototypes that were never built as their techy solution turned out to be useless. Look at the F-108s.
 
When they get all done, at the end of the day, what they will find out is that they aren't gonna discover anything new that will do what even the Mi carbine didn't do. That is kill people. The carbine did that very well!
 
Is it more effective.....

there are so many variables I think it tough to answer at this point.

What is "more effective", any way? more dead than dead? dead sooner?

This kind of question always makes me think of a scene from The WAR WAGON, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas both draw and shoot bad guys at the same time. Douglas brags. "mine hit the ground first!!"
Wayne replies, "mine was taller."

I think bigger bullets tend to work better, but defining "effective" depends on where you set your standards.

I could argue that a better word to use would be "efficient" but my argument probably won't be that effective....:rolleyes:
 
Should be looking for a reliable bullpup configuration that fires a a round that does a lot of damage up close and out beyond 500. Most combat is urban now right? Bullpup is a different manual of arms, but a longer barrel in a shorter package? Seems the best possible outcome.

But bullpups have reliability issues I’ve heard. Though my understanding of AUGs is that they are quality weapons. I’m not much of a ballistics guy. But I know that the since the First World War they have always wanted a gun that you can carry more ammo in a smaller package that shoots reliably all day. And they want it to do the deed quickly. Had a friend who was a marine who hated the 249 and loved the 240 because the round was more effective to him. :shrug:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top