Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 40 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,168 Posts
Your picture is far from complete. The "near peer adversary" aka China will be something that the U.S. has never seen. It's the WW2 Soviet Union, the Imperial Japan, and the Nazi Germany all in one.
Yeah - in all three of those, and in the PRC, there are Party members with submachine guns following the troops to shoot down any that falter.

Actually, the U.S. has seen that - in Korea, at Chosin and other places in Nov -Dec 1950. Hard duty on both sides.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,249 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 · (Edited)
Yeah - in all three of those, and in the PRC, there are Party members with submachine guns following the troops to shoot down any that falter.

Actually, the U.S. has seen that - in Korea, at Chosin and other places in Nov -Dec 1950. Hard duty on both sides.
In Korea, the Chinese military had tenacity, but lacked everything else that the US military had, i.e. the firepower, the air superiority, the logistics, and so on. The next generation "near peer adversary" will have everything they lacked in Korea. Maybe not as good as the US military, but the gap is closing fast. It will have the vast manpower and resources to produce like the Soviet Union, the technology innovation like the Nazi Germany, the fanaticism like the Imperial Japan. All three in one. No, there was no such thing in history. You haven't seen it yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
1. 80k psi is crazy high and I’m sure this will have some realistic unforeseen bad effects. If there’s a failure it would seem like game over for the rifle’s user. I’m not sure there is any really compelling reason for this either.

2. I understand that in Afghanistan the army was suddenly faced with the traumatic experience of having to engage enemy forces at long range, and had to reissue some M14s. Allegedly some soldiers even used civilian guns purchased from US gunshops. It seems like in literally every conflict of the 20th and 21st centuries, the armies of western nations like to design their next rifle to fight the last war. They should just decide on something with some reach and keep it in inventory for a bad day on the veldt/steppe/plains. This style of fighting will obviously be necessary again but maybe not for a long time and guns are not one size fits all.

3. I’m not holding my breath for this thing to see real world adoption on any large scale. The way army procurement works they will buy some of these new toys and play with them and see if they actually like them, if they want changes, or (big one) if they can actually justify/afford to upgrade some troops or all to this new platform. And that decision might be years, and might be a simple “no” like so many other mooted replacements of the AR platform in the last few years. Anything to the contrary is simply Sig’s marketing press release (“We have designed an amazing new weapon to replace the M4 for the whole US army, buy our stuff!”) regurgitated as a news article by various news outlets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Despite what western propaganda keeps putting out, the russian troops are equipped with a mix of the older soviet body armor patterns and the new ratnik systems. they all have body armor. Havent seen a single photo of Russian infantry(not DPR or LPR) without armor. The chinese are almost certain to have changed from when we crossed swords... about 70 years ago. It would be foolish to assume theyve been sitting still.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,164 Posts
NATO is not going to jump on this new cartridge. With what's going on in the Ukraine, NATO members are giving priority to other weapon systems, like air defense. Another factor is training. 5.56 personal weapons are easy to shoot and satisfactory results can be achieved with minimal training and ammunition expenditure. Reverting to a heavy recoil weapon will require returning to the basics, i.e. longer training time with increased ammo expenditures.

The shortcomings of the 5.56 small arms are compensated for with existing support weapons, e.g. artillery. For specialized requirements like LR sniping, NATO forces will stay with dedicated special troops equipped with rifles using the Lapua .338.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,529 Posts
I couldn’t remember the specs only that it was a decent round at the time. Just “not made here”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
The 6.8x51 is running at 80k chamber pressure and the case is steel to help support the higher pressure.

Fun fact, the 6.8x51 is actually designed for max chamber pressures of 120k !!!! So there is a bit of room for growth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
I though that the SDM (Squad Designated Marksman) concept - the M110A1 CSASS - was a sufficient answer to range problems at platoon and below. Not perfect, but good enough, and allows the 5.56 to remain in service for a longer term for the reasons a number of posters stated above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
I fail to see the advantage of the round. 7.62x51 is sufficient and no discernible benefit would be gained by reducing the bullet diameter by a smidgeon, in my opinion of course. Money would be much better spent in better MREs, I don’t think it will catch on.
 
21 - 40 of 79 Posts
Top