Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Probably not many guns issued to the Pentagon folks. When I was at the "Little Pentagon" in Europe, way back when, only the gate-guard MPs had weapons.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What's your guess for the future of the .308/7.62x51nato?
- Thread starter Pops1085
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
leadcounsel
Moderator
9x19 is also not STANDARD issue if the definition is that it's handed out to everyone. It's anemic compared to other calibers. But it won't be replaced in my lifetime.
We probably had nearly as many 308 rifles in my unit as 9mm handguns. Lots of M240s and bolt 308s. One on nearly every Humvee. Multiple in tactical positions at checkpoints. One or more in every guard tower. 2 on every Blackhawk. Racks full of them in our arms room. And sniper section had lots of bolt guns in 308. Miniguns in 308 too.
I've fired many 308 platforms, and love the caliber and the round. I've also seen the devastation of a belt of 240B into targets. It's messy and effective. The effective range is just fine.
People who think so, don't understand the slow bureaucracy, costs, decades of testing, etc. that are required. Think of the hundreds of billions $ replacing all the various platforms and all of the ammo we have purchased. Decades of testing.
Assuming that maybe there is some magic bullet in the same size/class that is what, 10% better.... it's simply not worth the effort. We don't NEED it. It's 'want' vs. 'need.' People want the next magic bullet and will foolishly pursue something that is often a step sideways or backward and spent a done of money and resources doing it. We'd be better spending time and resources training.
Let's also not forget it's a NATO chambering. Are we going to get NATO to change too, and all those platforms (FAL, HK, etc.)?
I've never heard ANYONE in combat complain the 308 was ineffective. Quite the opposite actually. It is one of the few things in the military that works well.
There are things that are worth changing, and others not. Why fix something that isn't broken? Like having a zillion Panasonic TVs and getting rid of all of them at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars so you can have a Sony TV instead because it has marginally better sound or picture.
We probably had nearly as many 308 rifles in my unit as 9mm handguns. Lots of M240s and bolt 308s. One on nearly every Humvee. Multiple in tactical positions at checkpoints. One or more in every guard tower. 2 on every Blackhawk. Racks full of them in our arms room. And sniper section had lots of bolt guns in 308. Miniguns in 308 too.
I've fired many 308 platforms, and love the caliber and the round. I've also seen the devastation of a belt of 240B into targets. It's messy and effective. The effective range is just fine.
People who think so, don't understand the slow bureaucracy, costs, decades of testing, etc. that are required. Think of the hundreds of billions $ replacing all the various platforms and all of the ammo we have purchased. Decades of testing.
Assuming that maybe there is some magic bullet in the same size/class that is what, 10% better.... it's simply not worth the effort. We don't NEED it. It's 'want' vs. 'need.' People want the next magic bullet and will foolishly pursue something that is often a step sideways or backward and spent a done of money and resources doing it. We'd be better spending time and resources training.
Let's also not forget it's a NATO chambering. Are we going to get NATO to change too, and all those platforms (FAL, HK, etc.)?
I've never heard ANYONE in combat complain the 308 was ineffective. Quite the opposite actually. It is one of the few things in the military that works well.
There are things that are worth changing, and others not. Why fix something that isn't broken? Like having a zillion Panasonic TVs and getting rid of all of them at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars so you can have a Sony TV instead because it has marginally better sound or picture.
Last edited:
semi_problomatic
New member
Wow, you are so off base it's not even funny.
Marines are already ditching the 9mm for the .45 ACP. Think it's not going to ve replaced in your lifetime? Think again.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ck-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/
200 rounds of any ammo on any living target will be pretty devastating.
Sure cost and backwards thinking are hurdles, but no one is talking about replacing JUST the 7.62. What I said was if they did adopt a larger round then the .308 would go the way of the 30-06. BECAUSE the .308 is an "intermediate" round. If you had a machine gun the size of the SAW but the effectiveness of the 240 and could replace both, why wouldn't you? The 6.8 and 6.5 are both effective from rifles out further than 5.56. They are NOT as effective as the .308 past that but would effectively bridge the gap to where the .308 wouldn't be needed. Could also replace SDM rifles as you wouldn't need to add another rifle (and parts) to your logistics, you could have just 1. I've actually already covered this but you must've misread it.
Either way it wouldn't have much effect on snipers (though it could) because snipers use match ammo, not regular ball ammo. Plus they could always upgrade to .300 win mag.
And NATO? Who cares? We forced 7.62x51 down their throats because .280 was too small then a few years later we forced 5.56 down their throats because 7.62x51 was too large. If we wanted to swap we'd force that down their throats too. They'd take it and like it.
No one said anything about swapping 7.62 because IT was ineffective. I said something about IF they swapped to 6.5 or 6.8 then the .308 would be redundant and phased out.
Marines are already ditching the 9mm for the .45 ACP. Think it's not going to ve replaced in your lifetime? Think again.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...ck-to-their-old-guns-colt-45-caliber-pistols/
200 rounds of any ammo on any living target will be pretty devastating.
Sure cost and backwards thinking are hurdles, but no one is talking about replacing JUST the 7.62. What I said was if they did adopt a larger round then the .308 would go the way of the 30-06. BECAUSE the .308 is an "intermediate" round. If you had a machine gun the size of the SAW but the effectiveness of the 240 and could replace both, why wouldn't you? The 6.8 and 6.5 are both effective from rifles out further than 5.56. They are NOT as effective as the .308 past that but would effectively bridge the gap to where the .308 wouldn't be needed. Could also replace SDM rifles as you wouldn't need to add another rifle (and parts) to your logistics, you could have just 1. I've actually already covered this but you must've misread it.
Either way it wouldn't have much effect on snipers (though it could) because snipers use match ammo, not regular ball ammo. Plus they could always upgrade to .300 win mag.
And NATO? Who cares? We forced 7.62x51 down their throats because .280 was too small then a few years later we forced 5.56 down their throats because 7.62x51 was too large. If we wanted to swap we'd force that down their throats too. They'd take it and like it.
No one said anything about swapping 7.62 because IT was ineffective. I said something about IF they swapped to 6.5 or 6.8 then the .308 would be redundant and phased out.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Colt Defense, based in Hartford, Conn., will supply as many as 12,000 of the 200,000 U.S. Marines with semi-automatic, tan-colored M45 Close Quarter Battle Pistols, and they will include spare parts and logistical support. The gun has long been the weapon of choice for special operations agents, thanks to its reliability and the stopping power of its massive bullets.
12,000 .45 caliber 1911s is barely a dent in the overall 9mm M9 platform, of which there are probably hundreds of thousands of M9s in service. In 2009, the military ordered 450,000 M9s alone, adding to the already massive inventory dating back to 1985. Wiki says that the military has over 2,000,000 M9 mags (assuming these are $10 each, that's $20,000,000 in just magazines! Mind boggling.).
I served in the Special Ops community. Some guys carried Glocks and some carried 1911s. I actually held a 1911 with a WWII serial number that had never been issued until OIF. CID carries Sig Sauers. Other services carry other pistols. Anyway, where am I going with this...? Ordering some .45 pistols isn't going to dethrone the common 9mm, which has a loyal following by the Armed Services for cost, logistics, weight, and training. The Marines are unique in that they are across the board bigger, stronger, and do more heavy lifting than the average Soldier, Airman, or Seaman. The 1911 .45 may be more well suited to the average Marine than the other services. (FYI, I'm not a M9 or 9mm fanboy, just stating observations.)
Back on point. I saw your posting. I understand it. I just disagree with it. I form my disagreement from many years and many combat deployments in the military.
Either way it wouldn't have much effect on snipers (though it could) because snipers use match ammo, not regular ball ammo. Plus they could always upgrade to .300 win mag.
I never saw these guys draw special ammo. Perhaps. My neighbor is a Special Forces sniper and sniper instructor. I'll ask him for the real info when I next get a chance. I'd be surprised though if they are drawing match grade ammo and not just bulk ammo for their shots. They are shooting to hit man sized targets, not for 1/2 MOA. 1 MOA still connects on a person at 1,000 yards. Good enough for government work.
I've done inventory of our arms rooms before. Got to handle a lot of cool stuff. Never saw a single .300 win mag in our inventory. Also never saw a single .300 win mag round in theater on 4 deployments. Saw lots of M24, suppressed M4 sniper setups, and the .50 Barrett. These are the near perfect incremental platforms. Adding yet another caliber just complicates logistics. A rifle is no use without ammo or parts.
Perhaps the most important point is a number. $17 Trillion. Massive budget cuts will effectively castrate pet projects any anything that doesn't turn on the lights and run the military. Things that work, like the 9x19, 5.56, and .308, and .50 are here for the duration until energy weapons. (I will caveat that by saying that absent some company producing a new caliber and platform that far surpasses these, and effectively donating so many guns and ammo that it makes sense to switch.)
The .308 ain't going anywhere in my lifetime.
Last edited:
nicknitro71
New member
What a cock contest this thread has become!
In any case, when I was deployed in Somalia, I refused to carry the STANDARD rifle, the 5.56, as I was not going to go head-to-head with the bad guys with a bee bee gun! The .223 is a small varmint ammo not something to be used on human-size animals. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on an old M14, that I had converted into a kinda-like M21. I loved that rifle and it served me well. I also carried confiscated AKs. I saw some skinnies get shot multiple times by the 5.56 and still charging! Never saw one getting up after a single .308 wound, go figure.
Why US and NATO switched from the .308 to the .223 and from the .45 to the 9 is way beyond my comprehension as a rational human being! What a joke!
The .308 is a great round for what it is. It cycles well in full auto, the recoil is not that bad, and it is highly efficient into taking down human-sized animals.
For ground hogs, go ahead and use the .223!
I wish the US military went for the AR-10 and kept the 1911 as their STANDARD!
In any case, when I was deployed in Somalia, I refused to carry the STANDARD rifle, the 5.56, as I was not going to go head-to-head with the bad guys with a bee bee gun! The .223 is a small varmint ammo not something to be used on human-size animals. I was fortunate enough to get my hands on an old M14, that I had converted into a kinda-like M21. I loved that rifle and it served me well. I also carried confiscated AKs. I saw some skinnies get shot multiple times by the 5.56 and still charging! Never saw one getting up after a single .308 wound, go figure.
Why US and NATO switched from the .308 to the .223 and from the .45 to the 9 is way beyond my comprehension as a rational human being! What a joke!
The .308 is a great round for what it is. It cycles well in full auto, the recoil is not that bad, and it is highly efficient into taking down human-sized animals.
For ground hogs, go ahead and use the .223!
I wish the US military went for the AR-10 and kept the 1911 as their STANDARD!
semi_problomatic
New member
12,000 .45 caliber 1911s is barely a dent in the overall 9mm M9 platform, of which there are probably hundreds of thousands of M9s in service. In 2009, the military ordered 450,000 M9s alone, adding to the already massive inventory dating back to 1985. Wiki says that the military has over 2,000,000 M9 mags (assuming these are $10 each, that's $20,000,000 in just magazines! Mind boggling.).
Are you sure you were in the military? Let me ask you; when the M16 was fielded, did it instantly replace the M14? When the 240 was fielded, did it instantly replace the M60? When ACU's were fielded, did they instantly replace the BDU's? When the multicam came out, did it instantly replace the ACU? When the M4 came out, did it instantly replace the M16? No, to all of them.
$20,000,000 In a disposable item? Whoop tee doo! Let me put that in another light for you, the military spent $32,000,000 developing green ammo. Green ammo cost $0.08/round compared to $0.005 a round for standard ball. Now, if you only gave each soldier in the army 260 rounds a year for training that would be a $15,000,000 increase in ammo cost with no real benefit to the soldier's training. You really think $20,000,000 in magazines they don't have to give up is a game changer? That is just for 5.56. They're doing the same thing with 7.62 next year! It's not like they instantly drop anything. Let me explain to you how transitioning works. The units that need it most get it first. Then it trickles down to the units who need it the least. Sure, there would be some SNAFU as combat units had xxx weapon/caliber and POG units had old stuff...no big deal. It's been dealt with before. Doesn't really boggle my mind either.
You want to know what does? When marines (arguably some of the better trained marksman in the military) have to use an $80,000 missile to possibly take out 1 sniper because their rifles are ineffective. That is mind boggling to me.
The military sniper rifle uses the 7.62mm NATO M118LR 175 grain FMJ-BT Match ammunition. (Sierra match kings, if you want to get specific). There is also M852 MATCH. Being you were/are in the military, you should've heard about that big stink the brain dead LT made when she proclaimed the match ammo snipers used was illegal and forced them to use delinked ammo in Iraq. So obviously marking a sheet of paper in an arms room doesn't make you an authority of using it. Look up the M24A2 (.300 win mag) and M24A3 (.338 lapua).
There is also MK262 MATCH in a 77 grain 5.56 flavor for SDM's lucky enough to get them. We got some from the 82nd when we relieved them in country.
What does socom have to do with anything? They get whatever they want. They're the ones who started fielding 6.8 spc! If they want a crossbow, they can get it.
"Saw lots of M24, suppressed M4 sniper setups, and the .50 Barrett. These are the near perfect incremental platforms. Adding yet another caliber just complicates logistics. A rifle is no use without ammo or parts. "
Does that even make sense to you. You disagree with using 1 round and removing the need for many weapon systems and easing logistics by having a common ammo and parts, yet adding one more caliber just complicates things? Yeah...sure made sense there.
1 moa good enough for 1000 yard shots....sheesh. The M24 is very easily a sub moa gun. .25-.5 moa is the norm. Oh, and do you know why (or at all) that the M24 is a long action? Because the army fully intended when purchasing it to upgrade it to more powerful .30 cal rounds. In case you're confused, the .308 is a short action round, the .300 win mag is a long action. And just guess what the army is paying remington $3,000 to $7,000 to do? Convert M24's over to .300 win mag!
And finally, your last point, the budget cuts. Just read back on the cost a few times and you'll get it. And, apparently, these huge budget cuts arn't stopping them from creating new units.
Nicknitro....the reasoning behind the change was actually good ideas. The 30-06 had problems being made full auto. The .308 was designed to replicate the 30-06 in a smaller package. Due to physics, forces act equally and opposite. So the .308 doesn't do a whole lot for recoil control. Sure, you say it's not that bad. But you've obviously never shot a G3 full auto. Trying to maintain it on a target at 25m is extremely difficult, to say the least. The reasoning behind the varmint round instead of a .280 or 6.5...probably pride...but sure wasn't any type of common sense. The origional 5.56 and rifle that was adopted and tested was very different from what is carried today though.
Oh yes, in 2008 the army did a 5 year purchase plan for M9's. For 450,000. It is now year 5, how many were actually delivered? Again, something you've missed during your time in the military...purchase order does not equal parts recieved. As of last year the army had still recieved less than half of that order. AND do you happen to know or want to guess how many of those M9's went to the Iraqis?
Are you sure you were in the military? Let me ask you; when the M16 was fielded, did it instantly replace the M14? When the 240 was fielded, did it instantly replace the M60? When ACU's were fielded, did they instantly replace the BDU's? When the multicam came out, did it instantly replace the ACU? When the M4 came out, did it instantly replace the M16? No, to all of them.
$20,000,000 In a disposable item? Whoop tee doo! Let me put that in another light for you, the military spent $32,000,000 developing green ammo. Green ammo cost $0.08/round compared to $0.005 a round for standard ball. Now, if you only gave each soldier in the army 260 rounds a year for training that would be a $15,000,000 increase in ammo cost with no real benefit to the soldier's training. You really think $20,000,000 in magazines they don't have to give up is a game changer? That is just for 5.56. They're doing the same thing with 7.62 next year! It's not like they instantly drop anything. Let me explain to you how transitioning works. The units that need it most get it first. Then it trickles down to the units who need it the least. Sure, there would be some SNAFU as combat units had xxx weapon/caliber and POG units had old stuff...no big deal. It's been dealt with before. Doesn't really boggle my mind either.
You want to know what does? When marines (arguably some of the better trained marksman in the military) have to use an $80,000 missile to possibly take out 1 sniper because their rifles are ineffective. That is mind boggling to me.
The military sniper rifle uses the 7.62mm NATO M118LR 175 grain FMJ-BT Match ammunition. (Sierra match kings, if you want to get specific). There is also M852 MATCH. Being you were/are in the military, you should've heard about that big stink the brain dead LT made when she proclaimed the match ammo snipers used was illegal and forced them to use delinked ammo in Iraq. So obviously marking a sheet of paper in an arms room doesn't make you an authority of using it. Look up the M24A2 (.300 win mag) and M24A3 (.338 lapua).
There is also MK262 MATCH in a 77 grain 5.56 flavor for SDM's lucky enough to get them. We got some from the 82nd when we relieved them in country.
What does socom have to do with anything? They get whatever they want. They're the ones who started fielding 6.8 spc! If they want a crossbow, they can get it.
"Saw lots of M24, suppressed M4 sniper setups, and the .50 Barrett. These are the near perfect incremental platforms. Adding yet another caliber just complicates logistics. A rifle is no use without ammo or parts. "
Does that even make sense to you. You disagree with using 1 round and removing the need for many weapon systems and easing logistics by having a common ammo and parts, yet adding one more caliber just complicates things? Yeah...sure made sense there.
1 moa good enough for 1000 yard shots....sheesh. The M24 is very easily a sub moa gun. .25-.5 moa is the norm. Oh, and do you know why (or at all) that the M24 is a long action? Because the army fully intended when purchasing it to upgrade it to more powerful .30 cal rounds. In case you're confused, the .308 is a short action round, the .300 win mag is a long action. And just guess what the army is paying remington $3,000 to $7,000 to do? Convert M24's over to .300 win mag!
And finally, your last point, the budget cuts. Just read back on the cost a few times and you'll get it. And, apparently, these huge budget cuts arn't stopping them from creating new units.
Nicknitro....the reasoning behind the change was actually good ideas. The 30-06 had problems being made full auto. The .308 was designed to replicate the 30-06 in a smaller package. Due to physics, forces act equally and opposite. So the .308 doesn't do a whole lot for recoil control. Sure, you say it's not that bad. But you've obviously never shot a G3 full auto. Trying to maintain it on a target at 25m is extremely difficult, to say the least. The reasoning behind the varmint round instead of a .280 or 6.5...probably pride...but sure wasn't any type of common sense. The origional 5.56 and rifle that was adopted and tested was very different from what is carried today though.
Oh yes, in 2008 the army did a 5 year purchase plan for M9's. For 450,000. It is now year 5, how many were actually delivered? Again, something you've missed during your time in the military...purchase order does not equal parts recieved. As of last year the army had still recieved less than half of that order. AND do you happen to know or want to guess how many of those M9's went to the Iraqis?
Last edited:
How is that possible at 1000 yards when M118LR accuracy specs is over 1 moa at 600 yards?1 moa good enough for 1000 yard shots....sheesh. The M24 is very easily a sub moa gun. .25-.5 moa is the norm.
That's much smaller than the "norm" for even the most accurate long range benchrest rifles with handloads.
I'd believe that accuracy at 100 yards.
Last edited:
semi_problomatic
New member
Bart, I'm not sure which of us needs to learn to read and which one needs to learn to write. But eventually we may just learn to understand each other. I was replying to what follows. I'll let you try again to interpret what I said. Cause we basically just said the same thing.
"I never saw these guys draw special ammo. Perhaps. My neighbor is a Special Forces sniper and sniper instructor. I'll ask him for the real info when I next get a chance. I'd be surprised though if they are drawing match grade ammo and not just bulk ammo for their shots. They are shooting to hit man sized targets, not for 1/2 MOA. 1 MOA still connects on a person at 1,000 yards. Good enough for government work. "
"I never saw these guys draw special ammo. Perhaps. My neighbor is a Special Forces sniper and sniper instructor. I'll ask him for the real info when I next get a chance. I'd be surprised though if they are drawing match grade ammo and not just bulk ammo for their shots. They are shooting to hit man sized targets, not for 1/2 MOA. 1 MOA still connects on a person at 1,000 yards. Good enough for government work. "
semi_problomatic
New member
Bart, what exactly does that have to do with anything even remotely related to this topic?
I do love how you pick one thing to misinterpret out of a long list and try to prove how much you know even if it is completely unrelated to the subject. When you get back on topic we can carry on this discussion.
I do love how you pick one thing to misinterpret out of a long list and try to prove how much you know even if it is completely unrelated to the subject. When you get back on topic we can carry on this discussion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.