Your Military round is ??

Poland, at least, uses rifles (AK type) in 5.56 and machine guns in 7.62 NATO (PK type) and of course, they switched back to the 9mm, having used it before the war. However, most older weapons continue in use as well.

Some weapons will probably not be converted. Tanks, for instance, tend to come with certain model of machine guns and apparently are rarely converted to other models. So tanks with 7.62x54r co-ax guns will probably always have those guns.
 
mkk41 said:
If anyone has a copy of Barnes Cartridges of the World , there was a round called the .280 British. A 139gr 7mm FMJ-BT bullet at 2530fps. Same weight bullet as the AK-47s 7.62x39 round , but a sleek 7mm , and slightly faster. Case is about the same length , but slightly less body taper. Looked like a winner , but got trumped by the US.

The US also had an experimental round back in the early 70s called the 6mm SAW. Intended for squad automatic weapons , it had a 105gr FMJ-BT bullet at 2520.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes, Cartridges of the World= one of my favorite "throne" books:D

I considered both those as possibilities. The .280 Brit cartridge is indeed intriguing, as is the 6mm SAW. But I think they are both nearly matched or exceeded in either the 6.8SPC or 6.5 Grendel.

Kinda funny how those 6.5 - 7mm cartridges just keep popping up.;)
 
True enough. But I've been wondering , since several former Com-Bloc nations are now members of NATO , did they give up their AK-47/74s and the 7.62/5.45x39?
Click to expand...

yes they have gotten rid of them, that's where a majority of the AK47/74s that the bubbas around the states use(myself included :D)
 
If weight wasn't an issue, I'd say everyone gets to carry a M240B (7.62) :D

Sweet mother of pearl, it is a sweet bullet spitting machine and accurate too.

But since we can't do that, I'd go with the 6.8 SPC as combat rifle, stick with the 7.62x51 for the machine guns and give our snipers .338.
 
I favor training over equipment changes (unless the equipment has a serious flaw).

Get some proper training going (not more training -- proper training); and we'll consider the equipment later on.
 
First of all, if you think hollow points are somehow illegal due to an an International treaty we never signed, and that it somehow exercises sovereign authority over me, you are wrong.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/01/army_jag_bans_e.html

Open tip match ammo is very much legal, and NO other authority other than the Constitution can tell me what to do - if it wants to try.

The last guy who tried that was some English king 200 years ago. Again, if you think someone has that kind of power over you, well, you deserve it. Me, I'm a free citizen.

As for a military caliber, I'll take the LSAT, whatever diameter it is. In the history of ammunition, the one thing that has continued to happen is a downsizing in caliber and increase in lethality - up to a point. In the military, however, it's NOT necessary to kill a soldier outright - if they are no longer shooting back, that's good enough. In order to get them to stop shooting, you have to get a hit, and in order to get a hit, you have to see them. Soldiers work hard at not being seen, and not getting hit.

The study of warfare over the last 100 years has included forensic and statistical analysis. What that has shown is that soldiers aren't always hit by aimed rounds. They get hit by stray bullets simply directed at them, and the more bullets flying toward them, the more hits.

It's really got very little to do with aimed fire with battle rifle calibers based on the .30 bullet. In fact, .30 battle rifles are NOT the best way to get results. Intermediate calibers that a soldier wants to fire, and large quantities of ammo to go with it are what works. Like it or not.

The LSAT is basically a telescoped round in a plastic case, weighs 40% less, and lets the soldier carry 40% more for the same weight as brass cased. More ammo means more ammo fired, which means more hits, which means less return fire, which means easier manuevering and the ability to tactically overcome the opposing force.

And yet, some people want to take a step back in time on the preposterous reason that the other soldier needs to be killed outright. That means using more powder, a larger bullet, more training, carrying less ammo, and trying to shoot a single bullet at a time at another soldier doing everything they can to not be seen. What part of "Didn't we already try that?" don't they understand?

For those who want a better insight, read up on the Battle of the Bulge, and focus your study on the American units equipped with Garands who faced German troops equipped with STG44's - the full auto assault rifle in 8mm Kurz. 8 round clips in single shot vs. 30 round mags in full auto? The obvious historical fact is that we got pushed back despite our brave, valorous attempt to resist. Frankly, we got our butts kicked.

The side with more bullets in the air can prevail, ask yourself, do you really want to limit yourself with some antiquated notion based on testosterone, not fact? Fine, but don't ask the pros to do that. They'll just smile and use what they know works. After all, it's their job to succeed.
 
Well, actually all the weapons the army uses are intended to kill. It says that in some manual I have. But that doesn't mean a .30-06 Springfield is still a really good rifle to be using today and anyway, they've got different weapons for different purposes. You can't get by with just one kind of weapon. And I'm not so sure that hollowpoints would make much difference.
 
I like the 5.56 round good enough. Not my fav but due to the versatility of it I like it. I say if it is not broke dont fix it and the 5.56 is not broke just needs tunning.

To the point being made about wounding is better then kill since it stops the bad guy from shooting at you, what you gonna do when he comes back in a week and shoots at you again. Then you wound him again he goes heals up and is back in a month shooting at you again. Wars are own by making the enemy die for is country not you for yours. So I would want to give the enemy the right to die for is country at the soonest possiable mountment which means the frist time I shoot him. It is for that reason that I would realy like to see the 5.56 round with a HPBT match bullet. In the 68gr-75gr area. I feel that would be about the best upgrade to it you can get.

But then again if I was shooting at only lightly clothed targets I would perfer a ballistic tip bullet. Somthing like a perarrie dog grenade. Yes it is meant for small varmints but I have seen them pretty much blow a 15 lbs ground hog in half at the 250 yard mark. Would not blow a man in half true but would still make on hell of a whole in him that more then likly would be fatale. I understand that is would be against almost every treaty that we abide by even if we didn't sign it. But truth is war is ugly. Very ugly but it is a war not a day at the range. Let war be the hell that it is and we need not to attempt to make it somthing it is not just to make people feel better. If every round that was fired and hit its target in Astan had resulted in a KIA then we would have been out of there a good while ago victorieus. The mental side of a bullet hiting a target and blowing a chunk out of it makes other enemys deside not get the hell out of the fight, that coupled with the number of dead equals winning wars.
 
Last edited:
For those who want a better insight, read up on the Battle of the Bulge, and focus your study on the American units equipped with Garands who faced German troops equipped with STG44's - the full auto assault rifle in 8mm Kurz. 8 round clips in single shot vs. 30 round mags in full auto? The obvious historical fact is that we got pushed back despite our brave, valorous attempt to resist. Frankly, we got our butts kicked.
Click to expand...

Actually that's a poor example on the subject. The battle of the Bulge didn't have much to do with the weapons used, but the fact that we got caught with our pants down.

In the same battle, look at Bastogne. You have one light infantry division against three armor divisions. Tanks against M1s and Bayonets. The paratroopers dug in and wouldn't budge. It would have been the same outcoume if they were using M1s or M16s, (except they would have been able to carry more rounds for the M16). They were pretty much out of ammo when Patten got there. Because of the weather they couldn't be re-supplied by air.
 
The weapons and platforms we have now are more than adequate. What most people fail to think of is all the extra stuff troops are required to take along nowadays. Heavier vests with trauma plates, first aid battle packs. A typical load out now is 12 mags with 30 rounds each for the M16/M4. When I was in it was half of that. And trust me when I say that humping around all that gear for 12 plus hours a day is taxing on the troops. And this doesn't include a 60 plus pound pack that you have to live out of.
 
Imagine the cost of replacing all the current weapons just to change cartridges. There would have to be a VERY SIGNIFICANT advantage to the new cartridge and its logistics.
I would leave it where we are.

Jerry
 
How many times has it happened beginning in 1873? Six times, including the .45-70 (but not the .50-70) and the .30-03. We've changed other weapon systems more often and probably at greater cost, although perhaps because of greater need.

Personally, I think the need for a limited number of different cartridges is exaggerated. I think I've mentioned this before but at times in WWII, a British tank crew might have required as many as four different small arms ammunition. There was 8mm for Besa guns (or .30 for the guns in a US built tank), .303 for the roof mounted gun (if any), either .45 or 9mm for the submachine guns they carried, and .38-200 for their revolvers. And if the main gun probably wasn't adequate anyway, the small arms didn't matter.
 
But I've been wondering , since several former Com-Bloc nations are now members of NATO , did they give up their AK-47/74s and the 7.62/5.45x39?

yes they have gotten rid of them, that's where a majority of the AK47/74s that the bubbas around the states use(myself included )
Click to expand...
I would say stop fantasizing. Your semi-automatic AKM lookalike was never fully automatic. Ask the BATFE.
 
I would say stop fantasizing. Your semi-automatic AKM lookalike was never fully automatic. Ask the BATFE.
Click to expand...
why do you think that when importing they have to cut the recievers. the reciever is the gun, everything else is just spare parts. you are not allowed to import a working automatic weapon but a deweaponized FA is legal. do take all the parts, put an american made reciever and make it semi and those you end up with a mostly imported AK that is made from parts that were once fully auto. not to start a thread jack or anything
 
Imagine the cost of replacing all the current weapons just to change cartridges. There would have to be a VERY SIGNIFICANT advantage to the new cartridge and its logistics.
Click to expand...
We don't have to imagine. We can just do the math.

According to Wikipedia we have 3 million active duty troops. Assume one gun for each of them and figure $1,000 for each gun with basic accessories, cleaning kit, etc. Then lets figure magazines, 20 magazines per gun and lets be pessimistic and charge what a Mini-14 30 rounder costs. The last ones I bought I got for $30 each.

So we have 3 million rifles at $1,000 each for a total of $3 billion dollars. We have 60 million magazines at $30 each for a total of 1.8 billion. Our grand total cost to switch of a whole new rifle and mags would cost us a whopping $4.8 billion dollars, not counting deployment costs.

The US government spends a trillion dollars a year on the military when you factor in everything in all departments that are "defense" related. (Department of Energy duties that are "defense" related, interest on debt that is "defense" related, etc.) If we scrapped every M4 and M16 in inventory we could replace them for less than 1% of the yearly military budget.

The cost argument is just not a valid excuse for not adopting a new rifle.

------------------------------------

On another note, if we are going to go with a new caliber then we should also ditch the AR-15 magazine. It puts serious restrictions of overall cartridge length that results in Rube Goldberg contrivances like the 6.5 Grendel and the 6.8 SPC. If we switch then we should adopt a weapon that can handle the COL of the 280 British, 2.54" vs the 2.26" of the .223. That extra length will allow far more variety of bullet weights and cartridge types without creating the disadvantages from going to a 308 length cartridge.

This change would benefit everyone, including 5.56 shooters. If you want to shoot 5.56 then with the extra length you can load heavy bullets to the new magazine length and get good velocity. Same is true with the 6.8 SPC, those shooters would no longer be confined to short stubby bullets.

A larger bolt head would be a must as well, allowing a greater variety of cartridges without stressing the bolt lugs. A bolt head that would allow 308 bolt head would give maximum variety.

Interchangeable magazine wells would be a must as well. Perhaps have the mag well be part of the upper receiver rather than the lower. That way if people are so attached to the short and flimsy AR mag then can just get an upper that takes them. This would also eliminate the problem that the AR has when dealing with tapered cartridges in a straight mag well.

An action design that allows a folding stock.

That's all I can think of for now.
 
I would choose the 7.62 NATO for infantry, because the 30 cal ammo has been combat proven thru war after war. The 7.62 may be heavy in weight but goes a long way and can puch thru the jungles,sands and walls,and knock down one or two enemy combatents no problem even at 600 yards. The 5.56 was put into play because if it hits a soft target out to about 300 meters it tumbles end over end when it hits its target, as the great gene styner designed it to do. After 300 meters it just becomes a glorified .22. I have and will gladly take a 7.62 nato into the sanbox and or jungle any day of the week before I even consider a 5.56. For snipers I would use the 30.06. It can pack a heavy load a long way, has been used in WW1, WW2, Korea, even seen action as a sniper, as well as a basic infantry round in Nam when m14 wernt in plentiful supply.Now its became one of the most popular hunting rounds.
 
There is justification for picking a cartridge for snipers (not the designated marksman) since, in theory, the sniper uses select ammunition to begin with and besides which, there are probably no more than a handful of snipers in a battalion. If, on the other hand, the designated marksman is included, the considerations then change and the cartridge should be the standard full caliber rifle cartridge. But that's probably not the right approach, including those two different missions together. Again, but only just in theory, all members of a rifle squad (except for the squad automatic) could be designated marksmen because they are all equipped with better optical sighting equipment than they used to be (they didn't used to have any). The only problem with that, however, is they don't all have the same training or ability to actually function as a designated marksman. This is looking at the situation from an organizational and training standpoint rather than from an equipment standpoint.
 
The real reason the army quit using .45 autos is because they ran out after everyone's father brought one home when they got out.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest cartridge change should be from 9mm BACK to .45! I'd even be happy with the .40, I mean, there are handguns in both these calibers that can contain 15+ rounds. I mean, if we can have just as many rounds of a more powerful caliber, why not go with that.

I like the idea of a 6.8 spc or 6.5 grendel round to replace the 5.56. The 6.5 offers the absolute best retained energy due to its sectional density. However, the 6.8 has a better case design in my opinion for full auto shooting. On the other hand, I am no expert.
 
It seems that every major military power is going to 5.x or 4.x caliber rounds for the their average troops. That has to mean something, as those countries have seen the results of the 5.56 NATO round. If the 5.56 were such a poor performer, I doubt other countries would follow with the smaller calibers. For the U.S., the 5.56 is here to stay. It has done its job, and has done it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top