Gunboards Forums banner
41 - 60 of 79 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
This cartridge has a stainless steel base coupled to a brass body via an aluminum locking washer.
Mixing these three metals together is asking for trouble.
The poodle shooter turned out a lot better than I thought it would when it first came out but I am all for a return to honest battle rifles.

How high will the pressures go when this thing is is running at belt fed temperatures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,052 Posts
The Army seems to go through this cycle every 30 years. Precision long-range shooting then to volume of fire, then back to precision long range shooting. Most small arms engagements happen at 100 yds or less. Afghanistan's long range shooting was as much an anomaly for the U.S. as the 2nd Boer war was for Great Britain. GB's experience gave them the P13 and we're getting the M5. the wrong lessons were learned. If I was General of the Army I would issue M16A4s with the 4 position stock and improved AP rounds and call it done. Perhaps the 5.56mm round cannot be made to penetrate Chines/Russian body armor but I would think a heavy bullet with a tungsten penetrator would do it.

5.56 mm x 45 Armor Piercing 3 (M995) - Nammo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
Did not Britian put forth a 6.8 round in the 50’s for their bull pup?
Yes, the 270 Enfield of 1947 had a case length of 1.803 (46mm) and a .422 base & rim. It was like a longer version of the 6.8 SPC. This excellent design reflected an understanding of the needs that led the Germans to adopt the 8x33 Kurtz. This lesson was also understood by the Soviets whose 7.62x39 is still in widespread use. US Ordinance did not understand and we ended up with the 7.62 NATO and the M-14, basically a revision of the M-1 Garand. When the need for a light automatic assault rifle arose, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara imposed on the Army a new and unproved design selected by the Air Force Security Police as a replacement for their M-1 carbines. I carried one in Vietnam and lots of infantry casualties resulted from this poorly planned fiasco. Oddly the M-16 and M-4 are still in use despite negative feedback from middle east combat veterans.

Had the US adopted the 270 Enfield or the 280 British when these solutions were offered, our troops in Vietnam and the Middle East would have been better armed. PED
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
189 Posts
I haven't researched this to any great degree compared to others but from just the few things I've looked at it seems like the optics package they plan on paring with this along with the longer range terminal ballistics of the round is what is supposed to be the game changer of this weapons system as a whole....each by it's own wouldn't make it but together they will. Not sure I buy that 100%, I would think it would greatly depend on what environment and tactical situation you were in....I wouldn't want to clear a house with it but if in a desert or on the open steep where you can see a long way it would be a different story.

An example to just illustrate a little. I'm a retired LEO, I did a deployment as a civilian to AFG about a decade ago and when I was going through some pre-deployment courses one of the instructors in combat meds was an ex-SEAL. He was relating his experiences from some of the missions he was on. He said he carried 3 mags and his med kit and that was it, he took the plates out of his armor and dumped everything he could so he could keep up and carry a mortar shell or two and that the way they were rolling when he was there they could never get close enough to engage with small arms and the only way to engage was to run them down enough to get within mortar range......he said ironically he was mostly a mule to hump motor shells.
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
9,745 Posts
Not that they were fans of the 7.62x51, but I believe that ultimately the Brits were not satisfied with the .270/.280/.280/30 series of cartridges, or possibly the EM-2 bull-pup rifles. They did indeed ultimately endorse a series of 7mm "Compromise" rounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tahoe

·
Registered
Joined
·
505 Posts
what it does from a 16” barrel is useless as the XM5 will have a 13.5” barrel; and will suffer from high barrel erosion from the 80K PSI pressure and heat.
too heavy weapon, too heavy optic, Uber expensive program, one source, heavier ammo and load outs to carry, more recoil, new platform to teach, low gain.
the army does not have any average joe training program in use that teaches anyone to use the capability of the M4 now much less a heavy recoiling super gun. 50-300m ”hit” targets is still the standard with weapon training just another block on the training calendar each year For most units.
this will be like the SCAR and M14. Both short lived.
Chicoms can change armor quicker than we can field weapons. Body armor shooting is just to justify the program.
it was either this or a new uniform or two and they have done the uniforms and handguns so it was time to waist $$ on this.
doubtful even SOCOM will use it much…again just like the SCAR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,529 Posts
Spur, I am issued a heavy / ballistic plate vest and while it is ”tact-I-cool” it is a PITA. I agree with your post of dumping unnecessary crap. I want to move and move fast if needed. I have two spare mags and a med kit on my heavy vest. But I do not drive around with on. Rides in the passenger seat. Freaking thing is heavy as [email protected] So if I bail from my patrol ride I’ll grab my AR or 870, which ever I get to first, AR with 30 rds or 870 with 12 rds, I’m screwed either way if I run dry. I carry spare ammo for each but if things are that bad I really don’t see me going to my trunk. “ Time out guys- need ammo!”. But I carry a tourniquet and two Israeli combat bandages on my person every shift.

For me I think 30 cal is the way to go. Load it up or down, either way it is multifunctional and all purpose. The new round seems great but why reinvent the wheel ? We all know what works, just stick with that. However that is way above my pay-grade and no one asked my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike radford

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,164 Posts
...the army does not have any average joe training program in use that teaches anyone to use the capability of the M4 now much less a heavy recoiling super gun. 50-300m ”hit” targets is still the standard with weapon training just another block on the training calendar each year For most units...
You ain't whistling Dixie. In 1990 I was acting battalion commander of a Fort Bragg unit - NOT 81st Airborne! - while the battalion was undergoing a test and certification program initiated by SOCOM. (No, it was not a green beanie unit either.) The battalion commander and his XO scheduled themselves back-to-back trips to get away from this. As next senior officer it was my responsibility to see the unit through the various tests.

One of these was range firing for qualification. I got word that my unit was not doing well at all on the range, so I rushed down to see what was wrong. The battalion sergeant major explained that the first group had all boloed, i.e. failed to qualify. I ordered the soldiers to form a hollow square around me and talked them through the procedure to adjust a hasty sling. The battalion sergeant major told me that the army no longer taught hasty sling, and the rifles had slings with simple buckles instead of the toggle lock keepers. So it took a while to fiddle with the sling buckles to adjust the slings properly. Then my troops got back on the firing line and the silhouette targets began to fall regularly. I retired later that year, glad to be no longer associated with such idiocy.

BTW I have an M1 Garand with the Criterion 6.5x55 Swedish Mauser barrel. The Swedes and Norwegians got it right 130 years ago.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,164 Posts
Why teach soldiers to use a sling? In 4 tours in Vietnam I never saw a soldier using a sling in combat, or in watching many, many videos of WWII and Korea, have not seen slings being used there either? John
Bingo! There is a big difference between shooting for a score on a rifle training range and combat. My "mission" was to get my battalion through an exercise for points. I did that.

My marksmanship training was in high school and college ROTC. Before senior ROTC summer camp, my unit was sent to Camp Pendleton where WWII and Korean War veteran USMC gunnies trained us to shoot the M1 Garand. You better believe the hasty sling was used. My ROTC unit qualified at summer camp with the highest scores. Again, that's points vs. real combat, but the "point" was well made. If you want to get a hit on a distant target, you use every advantage you can take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Not that they were fans of the 7.62x51, but I believe that ultimately the Brits were not satisfied with the .270/.280/.280/30 series of cartridges, or possibly the EM-2 bull-pup rifles. They did indeed ultimately endorse a series of 7mm "Compromise" rounds.
Not true. We were very happy with it as were the Canadians, and after dropping the bullpup EM-2 rifle, both UK & Canada were still intending to adopt the .280 (7x43) round for the FN FAL adoption.
It was the USA that kept rejecting the round, and pushed for the 7.62x51 as the NATO round, which for political reasons, we and others accepted and dropped the .280/7x43 round, only for USA to change tune within a few years and go its own way down the 5.56 route having forced everyone else in NATO down the 7.62x51 route.
There's no way UK will adopt this new 6.8x51 round, and as said, I can't see many, if any, other European NATO member doing so either. As they say, once bitten twice shy.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,164 Posts

Forgotten Weapons' deep dive into the new rifle and cartridge.
I watched this and felt like I underwent a mental enema. I wonder what sort of "encouragement" McCollum got from SIG to post it.
I was on the verge of vomiting when Ian explained that the troops will receive and train with all-brass normal pressure ammo, and the SS case head-brass body high pressure ammo will be issued only for actual combat.
Jeez... for decades the mantra in the US Army was "train like you are going to fight."
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
9,164 Posts
I believe the all brass rounds are for the commercial sales. They don't want the body armor penetrating, "Cop killing" ammo fall into the wrong hands.
In his YouTube video McCollum stated that all-brass ammo would be used for training. The rifle itself has a number of features I like, such as the side cocker, gas piston operation, and a relatively fast barrel replacement capability.

For soldiers used to the low recoil 5.56, and presumably relatively mild 6.8 all brass ammo, the heavy recoil of the composite cased service ammo will be a detriment to effective battlefield accuracy. This will require returning to the old-fashioned basic marksmanship training that will burn up a lot of the fancy new ammo as well as barrels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Not that they were fans of the 7.62x51, but I believe that ultimately the Brits were not satisfied with the .270/.280/.280/30 series of cartridges, or possibly the EM-2 bull-pup rifles. They did indeed ultimately endorse a series of 7mm "Compromise" rounds.
The .280 british had different variants , from a lower recoiling 7.62x39 ballistics design to a super hot one. The one they considered was one that had almost the recoil impulse of 7.62x51, naturally since .30 cal was common they decided for the bit more powerful 7.62x51 to have a good machine gun round and a mediocre rifle cartridge. The .280 would be both a mediocre machine gun and rifle cartridge, both being uncontrollable in assault rifles.
 
41 - 60 of 79 Posts
Top