User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M-4 and the 5.56:

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,459, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497476
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,798
    Points
    863,459
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,665
    Thanked 148,486x in 94,934 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M-4 and the 5.56:

    Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M-4 and the 5.56:

    This caliber debate is 100 years old. The army is finally taking it seriously and may pick a round between the 5.56 and 7.62.

    Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.


    If selected by senior leaders, the weapon could resolve a close-quarters weapons debate about calibers that critics say dates to the 1920s and has influenced military small arms ever since.


    If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower — with little change in weight.


    The new rifle would likely replace the M16/M4 platform, which has been in the hands of troops since the 1960s and undergone multiple modifications and upgrades.


    Maj. Jason Bohannon, lethality branch chief at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Matt Walker, deputy director of the branch and a retired command sergeant major, spoke recently to Army Times about broad efforts in small arms weapons research and development.


    ‘Better option’


    Work on the new round began in recent years, Bohannon said, and much of the next steps in developing both the round and rifle will be driven by the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study.


    The study has been going on since at least 2014, according to the Army.


    The study is expected to conclude in the next three months, Walker said.


    Portions of that report and its findings will likely be made public, but other portions may be deemed sensitive, they said.


    Multiple active and retired military arms advocates and industry experts have presented papers and data on the alleged “overmatch” that U.S. troops face on the battlefield with their current calibers.


    One oft-noted recent study was authored by then-Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, “Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.”


    The paper drew from soldiers’ experience in Afghanistan firefights.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. #2
    Points: 122,776, Level: 84
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Safety's Avatar Nationalist
    Karma
    2616415
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    GA/FL
    Posts
    50,789
    Points
    122,776
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    25,014
    Thanked 22,901x in 15,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    1237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know why we insist on arming our military with a suped-up .22. I mean, I know it's accurate as all hell, but a .308 in my opinion is a better round.

    Yea, I don't do the metric stuff.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Safety For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-10-2017)

  4. #3
    Points: 23,939, Level: 37
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 411
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Newpublius's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    39140
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Posts
    7,313
    Points
    23,939
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    1,556
    Thanked 4,123x in 2,793 Posts
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Safety View Post
    I don't know why we insist on arming our military with a suped-up .22. I mean, I know it's accurate as all hell, but a .308 in my opinion is a better round.

    Yea, I don't do the metric stuff.
    There is this whole 'NATO' compatability thing of course.

  5. #4
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,459, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497476
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,798
    Points
    863,459
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,665
    Thanked 148,486x in 94,934 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Safety View Post
    I don't know why we insist on arming our military with a suped-up .22. I mean, I know it's accurate as all hell, but a .308 in my opinion is a better round.

    Yea, I don't do the metric stuff.
    The weight of the ammo matters. At least for light infantry and SoF. The new rounds between the 5.56 and 7.62 can fit the bill- still light and with greater lethal striking distance.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Safety (05-10-2017)

  7. #5
    Points: 122,776, Level: 84
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Safety's Avatar Nationalist
    Karma
    2616415
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    GA/FL
    Posts
    50,789
    Points
    122,776
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    25,014
    Thanked 22,901x in 15,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    1237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Newpublius View Post
    There is this whole 'NATO' compatability thing of course.
    I know, but it's interesting how the people we fight outside of NATO all use the .308 (7.62).

  8. #6
    Points: 122,776, Level: 84
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Safety's Avatar Nationalist
    Karma
    2616415
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    GA/FL
    Posts
    50,789
    Points
    122,776
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    25,014
    Thanked 22,901x in 15,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    1237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The weight of the ammo matters. At least for light infantry and SoF. The new rounds between the 5.56 and 7.62 can fit the bill- still light and with greater lethal striking distance.
    Something like the .300 blackout or 6.5 grendel? They can use the same lower for both rounds.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Safety For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-10-2017)

  10. #7
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,459, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497476
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,798
    Points
    863,459
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,665
    Thanked 148,486x in 94,934 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Safety View Post
    Something like the .300 blackout or 6.5 grendel? They can use the same lower for both rounds.

    Yes. The 6.5 is the likely replacement.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Safety (05-10-2017)

  12. #8
    Points: 122,776, Level: 84
    Level completed: 98%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    Safety's Avatar Nationalist
    Karma
    2616415
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    GA/FL
    Posts
    50,789
    Points
    122,776
    Level
    84
    Thanks Given
    25,014
    Thanked 22,901x in 15,599 Posts
    Mentioned
    1237 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Yes. The 6.5 is the likely replacement.
    Pretty cool. I reckon the 6.8 spc is also on the table. I like the ballistics of the .300, haven't had a chance to try either the 6.5 or 6.8.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Safety For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-10-2017)

  14. #9
    Points: 8,949, Level: 22
    Level completed: 63%, Points required for next Level: 301
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Casper's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    99381
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    978
    Points
    8,949
    Level
    22
    Thanks Given
    377
    Thanked 410x in 299 Posts
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The weight of the ammo matters. At least for light infantry and SoF. The new rounds between the 5.56 and 7.62 can fit the bill- still light and with greater lethal striking distance.
    The 6.5 Creedmoor, would be a good alternative, still lightweight for capacity and hard enough hitting. The 7.62 is too heavy and not needed in most applications. I still find the 5.56mm acceptable a few Million dead people are proof enough for that. Not against the change, and the same M4 design, direct impingement can still be utilized, after all it is simple and reliable, a few changes and you have it with no training required. But keep in mind that this cannot happen quickly, there are many logistical requirements to be met, need lots and lots of ammo made before even considering it, at least it would be cheaper than 7.62 NATO for us tax payers. My hope is that the government will sell the surplus 5.56mm ammo they have at cut rate prices would love to get a bunch of ammo to feed my three hungry girls. The nice bonus is for civilians we can already buy uppers for our existing AR15's and then you can switch out for different applications without having to go through another useless background check.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Casper For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (05-10-2017)

  16. #10
    Original Ranter
    Points: 863,459, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    497476
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    242,798
    Points
    863,459
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,665
    Thanked 148,486x in 94,934 Posts
    Mentioned
    2554 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Casper View Post
    The 6.5 Creedmoor, would be a good alternative, still lightweight for capacity and hard enough hitting. The 7.62 is too heavy and not needed in most applications. I still find the 5.56mm acceptable a few Million dead people are proof enough for that. Not against the change, and the same M4 design, direct impingement can still be utilized, after all it is simple and reliable, a few changes and you have it with no training required. But keep in mind that this cannot happen quickly, there are many logistical requirements to be met, need lots and lots of ammo made before even considering it, at least it would be cheaper than 7.62 NATO for us tax payers. My hope is that the government will sell the surplus 5.56mm ammo they have at cut rate prices would love to get a bunch of ammo to feed my three hungry girls. The nice bonus is for civilians we can already buy uppers for our existing AR15's and then you can switch out for different applications without having to go through another useless background check.

    Nothing in the army changes fast. I think they claim 2020 now. That will likely push to the right several years.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts